|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 31, 2018 14:06:33 GMT
I can't really see PP allowing more current Mercs/Minions into Ret, I am no fluff bunny, but from what I gather Ios is a very insular society, and the elves are pretty racist (like almost all fantasy), hence why the only mercs they can take are other elves (Nyss Hunters, Edrea, Dahlia), the only exceptions are Madelyn (not sure what the fluff is behind her), and Eilish (who is just a cynical shoe-horn to sell magazines)
Give me partisan A and H and I will be very happy. Kiss in faction helps with both forges and shadows main issues. Yeah it's pretty silly that only Holt and the Danger Noodle can benefit from Harm, they need a ranking officer, but seems a bit silly for just one unit, partisan would be the easiest answer, although I am not sure how the Retribution would feel about making scurvy pirates bonafide official members of their organisation
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on May 31, 2018 15:14:42 GMT
It's weird because it's been implied that Aiyana is a Seeker (though how wandering around on pirate ships helps the gods I don't know) but Holt is a human who pretty much only gets by on not being mage and being vouched for.
Also there's that awkward think where the Lyliss in Kiss of Lyliss is an Iosian god but apparently they don't respect her kisses.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 31, 2018 15:18:39 GMT
Give me partisan A and H and I will be very happy. Kiss in faction helps with both forges and shadows main issues. Yeah it's pretty silly that only Holt and the Danger Noodle can benefit from Harm, they need a ranking officer, but seems a bit silly for just one unit, partisan would be the easiest answer, although I am not sure how the Retribution would feel about making scurvy pirates bonafide official members of their organisation Maybe just give Aiyanna Partisan?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 31, 2018 15:21:22 GMT
Yeah it's pretty silly that only Holt and the Danger Noodle can benefit from Harm, they need a ranking officer, but seems a bit silly for just one unit, partisan would be the easiest answer, although I am not sure how the Retribution would feel about making scurvy pirates bonafide official members of their organisation Maybe just give Aiyanna Partisan? She is still a crusty sea wench! despite being an elf.
|
|
|
Post by belgambit on May 31, 2018 15:22:49 GMT
Personally, I think we need a new All-Jack theme that allows us to use our entire stable of Myrmidons.
I also think we should change Forges and Defenders slightly:
Retribution of Scyrah theme force Defenders of Ios Army Composition An army made using this theme force can include only the following Retribution models: • Retribution warcasters • Non-character warjacks • Non-Mage Hunter models/units • Sylys Wyshnalyrr, the Seeker • Retribution battle engines Special Rules • This army can also include one Mercenary solo and one Mercenary unit that will work for the Retribution. These models can be included even if they have the Partisan [Retribution] special rule. Mercenary units in this army can include attachments. • For every full 25 points of Retribution units and battle engines in this army, you can add one Houseguard weapon crew unit, Houseguard command attachment, or Retribution solo to the army free of cost. Free models do not count toward the total point value of units in the army when calculating this bonus. • Retribution solos and Stormfall Archer units in this army gain Reposition [3˝]. (At the end of an activation in which it did not run or fail a charge, a model with Reposition [3˝] can advance up to 3˝, then its activation ends.) • Houseguard Halberdier units in this army gain Advance Move. (Before the start of the game, but after both players have deployed, a model with Advance Move can make a full advance.)
I think Defenders should allow all non-Mage Hunter models, representing the military might of Ios. Limiting to Houseguard command attachments and weapon crews for freebies keeps it flavorful. Allowing Shyeel and Dawnguard gives us an almost full fledged combined arms option.
Retribution of Scyrah theme force Forges of War ARMY COMPOSITION An army made using this theme force can include only the following Retribution models: • Retribution non-Vyre warcasters • Shyeel non-character warjacks • Shyeel solos, units, and battle engines • Houseguard solos, units, and battle engines • Arcanist Mechanik solos • Sylys Wyshnalyrr, the Seeker Special Rules • This army can also include one Mercenary solo and one Mercenary unit that will work for the Retribution. These models can be included even if they have the Partisan [Retribution] special rule. Mercenary units in this army can include attachments. • For every full 25 points of Retribution warjacks in this army, you can add one Shyeel solo to the army free of cost. • Retribution warjacks in this army gain Shield Guard. (When a friendly model is directly hit by a non-spray ranged attack during your opponent’s turn while within 3˝ of a model with Shield Guard, you can choose to have the model with Shield Guard directly hit instead. It is automatically hit and suffers all damage and effects. A model can use Shield Guard only once per round and cannot use Shield Guard if it is incorporeal, knocked down, or stationary.) • Friendly models/units can begin the game affected by the upkeep spells of models in this army. These spells and their targets must be declared before either player deploys any models. Models in this army do not have to pay to upkeep their spells during your first turn of the game.
House Shyeel likely contributes to the Houseguard just as much as any other House, so why should Houseguard be excluded from a Shyeel theme? Limiting free solos to Shyeel keeps the flavor of the theme, allowing Houseguard gives combined arms options.
Alternatively, allow us a single solo and unit choice from outside the theme (with or without limitations depending on theme), similar to allowing us mercs.
|
|
|
Post by psycomonky on May 31, 2018 18:51:58 GMT
The second is forges with houseguard included which i think is necessary. Makes no sense otherwise.
For the first one of the more annoying items i defenders is that only two units really benefit from the theme, the rest are just tacked on to say they exist in a theme. Allow the two benefits to benefit all units. If a warrior model unit has a ranged attack it gets reposition otherwise it gets advanced move.
Then you can chose which selections you want rather than having to justify not taking the one who gets advanced move in theme.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on May 31, 2018 20:05:11 GMT
The second is forges with houseguard included which i think is necessary. Makes no sense otherwise. For the first one of the more annoying items i defenders is that only two units really benefit from the theme, the rest are just tacked on to say they exist in a theme. Allow the two benefits to benefit all units. If a warrior model unit has a ranged attack it gets reposition otherwise it gets advanced move. Then you can chose which selections you want rather than having to justify not taking the one who gets advanced move in theme. This is a liiiiittle extreme I think. There's a big difference between "Solos and a 4-man unit" and "Anyone with a gun" since that includes things like Nyss Hunters and Heavy Rifle Teams. Probably more reasonable to just add Electromancers to the units that get Repo.
|
|
|
Post by psycomonky on May 31, 2018 20:12:59 GMT
The second is forges with houseguard included which i think is necessary. Makes no sense otherwise. For the first one of the more annoying items i defenders is that only two units really benefit from the theme, the rest are just tacked on to say they exist in a theme. Allow the two benefits to benefit all units. If a warrior model unit has a ranged attack it gets reposition otherwise it gets advanced move. Then you can chose which selections you want rather than having to justify not taking the one who gets advanced move in theme. This is a liiiiittle extreme I think. There's a big difference between "Solos and a 4-man unit" and "Anyone with a gun" since that includes things like Nyss Hunters and Heavy Rifle Teams. Probably more reasonable to just add Electromancers to the units that get Repo. I get where you are coming from but I would prefer if it was more generic. Possibly two units per turn gain repo3? I just want benefits that don’t force list selection toward one solution but allow equal benefits to all potential solections, or at least as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on May 31, 2018 20:22:34 GMT
I don't disagree with you on principle, I just think that it was originally restricted for a reason and that reason was likely a combination of Nyss Hunters and mystery future units. Once Ryssovass and Swordsmen were added that just made it worse; I don't think they want Nyss shooting and scooting and while Ryss and Swordsmen sound less abusive on the surface there may be interactions we haven't thought of.
All I'm really trying to emphasize is to keep expectations in check. As soon as any crazy idea catches on and then doesn't happen it's going to turn into salt and complaints when the CID forums open up. Remember the guy who kept starting threads about how the Suppression Tanker was the most broken model in the game? Or the guy who kept demanding that the Toro gain Tried and True? The less of those we have in our CID the better. We've seen time and again that PP responds best in CID to people taking the suggestions, testing them, and suggesting measured changes. IMO the ideal CID wouldn't even be announced ahead of time so no one would come in with a list of expectations but then of course no one would come in at all lol.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 31, 2018 20:27:11 GMT
I don't disagree with you on principle, I just think that it was originally restricted for a reason and that reason was likely a combination of Nyss Hunters and mystery future units. Once Ryssovass and Swordsmen were added that just made it worse; I don't think they want Nyss shooting and scooting and while Ryss and Swordsmen sound less abusive on the surface there may be interactions we haven't thought of. All I'm really trying to emphasize is to keep expectations in check. As soon as any crazy idea catches on and then doesn't happen it's going to turn into salt and complaints when the CID forums open up. Remember the guy who kept starting threads about how the Suppression Tanker was the most broken model in the game? Or the guy who kept demanding that the Toro gain Tried and True? The less of those we have in our CID the better. We've seen time and again that PP responds best in CID to people taking the suggestions, testing them, and suggesting measured changes. IMO the ideal CID wouldn't even be announced ahead of time so no one would come in with a list of expectations but then of course no one would come in at all lol. It was definitely in the top 10 'most broken models' as they showed it in week one. That model took substantial nerfs in the CID process, and is probably not the best example of 'unwarranted whining'.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on May 31, 2018 20:35:41 GMT
The thread that started with Matrix Reloaded memes and hyperbolic real-world comparisons was definitely unwarranted whining...
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 31, 2018 20:39:11 GMT
The thread that started with Matrix Reloaded memes and hyperbolic real-world comparisons was definitely unwarranted whining... Wait, what did I miss here?
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on May 31, 2018 20:50:37 GMT
cid.privateerpress.com/forum/theorycrafting-listbuilding/t-l-armored-corps-week-2/64678-suppression-tanker-rule-redundancyI think they ended up cleaning up the thread a little afterwards because the OP was banned and the posts seem to be a bit less... volatile. To my memory the OP was originally getting pretty bitter and mean against people who disagreed with them. I will concede that that wasn't a great example of the point I'm actually trying to make about preconceptions, though it is a good example of people communicating in a way that does nothing to actually help their cause. My point is that we'll all likely be happier if we come into the CID with as blank a slate as possible, take the changes presented, and comment on them on their own value rather than as compared to the ideal we've built in our head. It will also be much easier to change things by saying "this doesn't work quite right" than "this doesn't work the way I want it to."
|
|
bluebeard
Junior Strategist
crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women
Posts: 293
|
Post by bluebeard on Jun 1, 2018 1:43:44 GMT
I agree with this. I've yet to participate in a CID, I may have to now. Does PP lay out an overview of what they want to accomplish? Also, do they identify/explain what their expectations are for each change made? If not, that could help steer the player base towards a more constructive level.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Jun 1, 2018 3:02:21 GMT
Generally they do. If you look at the initial rules post for the latest test (https://cid.privateerpress.com/forum/rules/model-rules-reference/81441-exemplar-cid-initial-rules) you can see they give a basic summary of what the new models should do and what they're looking to get the old models doing, plus some specific thoughts they'd like tested. There's also always a separate post for new releases that has their concept art and fluff brief for getting a feel for the model. Sadly it seems there are community members that just scroll down to the PDF and never look at the rest for context.
|
|