|
Tharn CID
Sept 8, 2018 11:17:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Sept 8, 2018 11:17:49 GMT
So, if I were to make myself into a caster, he would have the ability that Lanyssa has, but it would be for Circle instead of Legion. That said, the Tharn CID is out. Immediate observations, and suggested counters? I’m terrified of the new Tharn and other models getting buffed, if I’m being honest. From what i can see in the cid forum Circle players are crying /complaining a lot. How they argue that a Stalker should be mat 7 is beyhond me... the same with arguinig for lower costs on warpwolves... they should play legion and then complain that about defense/arm ratios... Aren't all CID like that? The powercreep is real, obviously people want to take care of their armies. And legion players did their fair share of whining at our CID. That doesn't mean I think we got the CID we needed. If one thing was made clear during that CID it's that PP doesn't so much look at what a faction needs but at what needs to be done to sell the new models. Things that aren't in CID fall behind even further, it's just sad. And even then I think most of legion's problems lie in our themes, not so much the models. They don't cater towards the factionidentity/playstyle (of old) at all.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 8, 2018 13:02:19 GMT
As someone who plays both Circle and Legion, I think it's time to weigh in on the storm raptor pity-party here.
Is the SR better than the AA? Not in it's week II incarnation it isn't. It has some really nifty rules, cool bells and whistles, but the basic complaint (that it simply doesn't have the damage output a 30+ point model should have) remains true. Let me be clear - I don't think the AA meets this standard either, but it's a lot better off in this department than the SR. D3+1 ROF is so much better than RoF1 with Reload(1), that dwarfs all the other bells and whistles.
More importantly, the AA isn't up to snuff either. A good CiD on the SR would leave it better than the AA simply because the AA isn't good enough for competitive play, and thus is not a good target to aim for. This is the same as when daft Circle players were complaining during the PT CiD that blighted Ogrun were so much better than male Tharn - a never-played unit is just a terrible yardstick to measure CiD improvements by.
Hope for a good Storm Raptor. Hope for a great Storm Raptor. Since it's so similar to the Archangel, maybe a positive result will inspire some love for the Archangel as well, and I'll finally be able to justify buying the best looking model in the entire game.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Sept 8, 2018 13:58:35 GMT
That's been exactly my position unded. People who've been arguing that the SR can't be improved because its becoming better than the AA blow my mind.
|
|
|
Tharn CID
Sept 8, 2018 14:14:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by fanbloodytastic on Sept 8, 2018 14:14:42 GMT
Why don’t you think the archangel is good enough for competitive play? In my opinion not enough time has passed to infer that from tournament results alone.
The archangel improvements in the primal terrors CID were a huge step forward and it should now be a viable option for several casters. That is the powerlevel I want, not something like the judicator which appears to have been taken a step too far...
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Sept 8, 2018 15:55:49 GMT
That's been exactly my position unded. People who've been arguing that the SR can't be improved because its becoming better than the AA blow my mind. Because from a general perspective the AA went through CID and was deemed "balanced" so going beyond the AA yardstick is becoming "unbalanced".
Now, I still believe the raptor needs better shooting capability. But since it so much cheaper I can't imagine it getting the same d3+1, but rof2 is very reasonable.
I'm only grumpy about sky high. That would be an insanely useful quality of life improvement for the AA. Which it may very well get in the dynamic update. But I don't have my hopes up.
|
|
|
Tharn CID
Sept 8, 2018 16:08:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Sept 8, 2018 16:08:30 GMT
From what i can see in the cid forum Circle players are crying /complaining a lot. How they argue that a Stalker should be mat 7 is beyhond me... the same with arguinig for lower costs on warpwolves... they should play legion and then complain that about defense/arm ratios... Aren't all CID like that? The powercreep is real, obviously people want to take care of their armies. And legion players did their fair share of whining at our CID. That doesn't mean I think we got the CID we needed. If one thing was made clear during that CID it's that PP doesn't so much look at what a faction needs but at what needs to be done to sell the new models. Things that aren't in CID fall behind even further, it's just sad. And even then I think most of legion's problems lie in our themes, not so much the models. They don't cater towards the factionidentity/playstyle (of old) at all. To be clear i do hope circle gets good rules. My comment is aimed at the completly outlandish wishes presented by circle players... things like an 8 point unit like the twins nearly one rounding a colossal and people complaining about "damage output". Things like having a bunch of buffs to an already good beast and complaining it needs "m0ar" because reasons. The legion cid was mostly about how broken was arm 17 or 18 on chosen not what could be done yo improve the ravagore/ scythean when all they got was a point deduction. Also i do know that power creep occurs and new models must offer something at least as good as the ones that already exist. I just wish at this point that PP would tone it down a notch...especially on the way circle cid os going. Just trying to use common sense...thats all
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 8, 2018 16:25:06 GMT
I think a lot of the talk of "power creep" is really unwarranted (and willfully ignorant of context).
When MKIII launched, it was a debacle. the inter-faction balance was a mess, and the intra-faction balance was even worse. The base-level for power level will always be set by the top of the lot, which left a huge amount of models behind this (potentially unreasonable?) curve. Each CiD has done a lot of work to bring models behind this curve up to snuff, which in a vacuum could be seen as power creep. It really isn't, however, once you look at it a bit more closely - CiD has not pushed the level of power in top lists higher and higher, but instead has merely brought models / lists / factions up to par with top-performing toys. That's actually pretty awesome, and speaks incredibly well of the CiD process even if you disagree with some of the details (like I personally cannot understand the sheer quantity of drugs required to greenlight the Ancestral Guardian as it stands...).
CiD has had a massive task laid at its feet as a result of the frankly abysmal MKIII release. Some of the worst stuff needed / may still need such significant buffs that in a vacuum it can look like power creep. Take it from everyone who has experienced GW's army book releases - this is nothing like genuine power creep, and the Dev team deserve a ton of credit for making it so.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Sept 9, 2018 1:23:10 GMT
And its important to take into account, that it isn't like the stuff that was top of the pack at launch is getting better. In fact its often getting hammered down hard.
If WGI starts getting buffs its a different story than if wolves of winter gets a bunch of great new stuff.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 9, 2018 9:03:20 GMT
Why don’t you think the archangel is good enough for competitive play? In my opinion not enough time has passed to infer that from tournament results alone. The archangel improvements in the primal terrors CID were a huge step forward and it should now be a viable option for several casters. That is the powerlevel I want, not something like the judicator which appears to have been taken a step too far... In theory? because it's ranged output is very poor for 36 points. Averaging 3 shots is really uninspiring, especially in comparison to colossals / gargantuans who do justify their points (think Judicator, who just with the sprays does better than the AA, or either of the Cygnar colossals with two big guns plus a whole lot of fire from the nipple cannons). These colossals even have similar melee output to the AA, so it's not like they sacrifice anything to get such strong ranged output. Hell, even the Kraken, red-headed stepchild of the colossal set, fares better than the AA. In practice? We have seen PT been taken up almost immediately following a good CiD. If the AA was up to snuff, it would be seeing a similar level of acceptance imo.
|
|
|
Tharn CID
Sept 10, 2018 6:17:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Sept 10, 2018 6:17:19 GMT
I think a lot of the talk of "power creep" is really unwarranted (and willfully ignorant of context). When MKIII launched, it was a debacle. the inter-faction balance was a mess, and the intra-faction balance was even worse. The base-level for power level will always be set by the top of the lot, which left a huge amount of models behind this (potentially unreasonable?) curve. Each CiD has done a lot of work to bring models behind this curve up to snuff, which in a vacuum could be seen as power creep. It really isn't, however, once you look at it a bit more closely - CiD has not pushed the level of power in top lists higher and higher, but instead has merely brought models / lists / factions up to par with top-performing toys. That's actually pretty awesome, and speaks incredibly well of the CiD process even if you disagree with some of the details (like I personally cannot understand the sheer quantity of drugs required to greenlight the Ancestral Guardian as it stands...). CiD has had a massive task laid at its feet as a result of the frankly abysmal MKIII release. Some of the worst stuff needed / may still need such significant buffs that in a vacuum it can look like power creep. Take it from everyone who has experienced GW's army book releases - this is nothing like genuine power creep, and the Dev team deserve a ton of credit for making it so. That's a very long way of saying that step by step, models get elevated to the top of the powercurve... which is a form of powercreep. If they would do a balancing act, models would be taken towards the middle of the pack. Things should come out of Cid OK to good, not excellent or (borderline) op. I guess in the end it doesn't matter which way they go about their balancing, but dùring the process everybody gains from each cid cycle that follow the avarageing route, whereas making most things stronger only increases the gap untill all models got their cid.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Tharn CID
Sept 10, 2018 10:58:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by unded on Sept 10, 2018 10:58:44 GMT
I think a lot of the talk of "power creep" is really unwarranted (and willfully ignorant of context). When MKIII launched, it was a debacle. the inter-faction balance was a mess, and the intra-faction balance was even worse. The base-level for power level will always be set by the top of the lot, which left a huge amount of models behind this (potentially unreasonable?) curve. Each CiD has done a lot of work to bring models behind this curve up to snuff, which in a vacuum could be seen as power creep. It really isn't, however, once you look at it a bit more closely - CiD has not pushed the level of power in top lists higher and higher, but instead has merely brought models / lists / factions up to par with top-performing toys. That's actually pretty awesome, and speaks incredibly well of the CiD process even if you disagree with some of the details (like I personally cannot understand the sheer quantity of drugs required to greenlight the Ancestral Guardian as it stands...). CiD has had a massive task laid at its feet as a result of the frankly abysmal MKIII release. Some of the worst stuff needed / may still need such significant buffs that in a vacuum it can look like power creep. Take it from everyone who has experienced GW's army book releases - this is nothing like genuine power creep, and the Dev team deserve a ton of credit for making it so. That's a very long way of saying that step by step, models get elevated to the top of the powercurve... which is a form of powercreep. If they would do a balancing act, models would be taken towards the middle of the pack. Things should come out of Cid OK to good, not excellent or (borderline) op. I guess in the end it doesn't matter which way they go about their balancing, but dùring the process everybody gains from each cid cycle that follow the avarageing route, whereas making most things stronger only increases the gap untill all models got their cid. Not quite. Power creep is when the curve keeps shifting with every release imo. In this case the models are being moved to that static power level, but not beyond it. It’s a pretty important distinction- it means that you don’t have to keep buying the latest hotness in order to stay competitive, since your old models are being brought in line with the best in the game
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Sept 10, 2018 12:01:28 GMT
That's a very long way of saying that step by step, models get elevated to the top of the powercurve... which is a form of powercreep. If they would do a balancing act, models would be taken towards the middle of the pack. Things should come out of Cid OK to good, not excellent or (borderline) op. I guess in the end it doesn't matter which way they go about their balancing, but dùring the process everybody gains from each cid cycle that follow the avarageing route, whereas making most things stronger only increases the gap untill all models got their cid. Not quite. Power creep is when the curve keeps shifting with every release imo. In this case the models are being moved to that static power level, but not beyond it. It’s a pretty important distinction- it means that you don’t have to keep buying the latest hotness in order to stay competitive, since your old models are being brought in line with the best in the game Maybe this analogy makes sense -
In MTG there is distinct power creep. Megrim was an card that costs 2B. It was regarded as balanced at the time. The Liliana's Caress came out for 1B. Exact same rules on the card. But cheaper to cast. That is specific power creep. (same with Demonic and Diabolic tutor)
That would be like putting Haley 3 through CiD and just buffing her without clear evaluated reason. That's would be shifting the upper curve "higher". That would be power creep.
CiD is SLOW, so it going to seem like they are shifting some things up and willfully leaving others behind. It is not an intention to make only "part" of a faction playable. But they cannot cover every model in one go. So inevitably there will be model left below the curve *cough Legionnaires *cough cough
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Sept 10, 2018 14:57:15 GMT
Throne vs Scythean - I've had (very) limited success using Scythean as anti-infantry. The argument could be made that it is more designed to answer medium bases who have tough and/or high def. I think during the CID (or here) someone already compared the ideal scenario of Scythean vs what the Throne can do and it came out about the same? The deciding factor (as already stated) was the Throne requires no resource management from the caster is more survivable. This was stated during the CID. There was lots of talk and encouragement to teak the Scythean to have a different role or do what it does better to justify the risk/reward. Lowering the points was something but I think it misses the mark of what the ask was.
I really want the Storm Raptor to be better and any other model that is behind the power curve. This should help PP balance the game overall - and (hopefully) eventually get some adjustments to Legion as well. But then again, JVM is a stud so maybe I just need to get better? I would like to use something other than K1 dude spam though.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Sept 10, 2018 15:06:55 GMT
Throne vs Scythean - I've had (very) limited success using Scythean as anti-infantry. The argument could be made that it is more designed to answer medium bases who have tough and/or high def. I think during the CID (or here) someone already compared the ideal scenario of Scythean vs what the Throne can do and it came out about the same? The deciding factor (as already stated) was the Throne requires no resource management from the caster is more survivable. This was stated during the CID. There was lots of talk and encouragement to teak the Scythean to have a different role or do what it does better to justify the risk/reward. Lowering the points was something but I think it misses the mark of what the ask was. I really want the Storm Raptor to be better and any other model that is behind the power curve. This should help PP balance the game overall - and (hopefully) eventually get some adjustments to Legion as well. But then again, JVM is a stud so maybe I just need to get better? I would like to use something other than K1 dude spam though. I think the Scythean is meant to be in-between the Throne and the Carnivean. Being a warbeast it has access to boosting, and has access to grievous wounds as an animus. It can either (at least) cripple a warbeast/warjack, or it can take out a few infantry, regardless of how high their defense is, whether they have tough, etc.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 10, 2018 15:27:29 GMT
Throne vs Scythean - I've had (very) limited success using Scythean as anti-infantry. The argument could be made that it is more designed to answer medium bases who have tough and/or high def. I think during the CID (or here) someone already compared the ideal scenario of Scythean vs what the Throne can do and it came out about the same? The deciding factor (as already stated) was the Throne requires no resource management from the caster is more survivable. This was stated during the CID. There was lots of talk and encouragement to teak the Scythean to have a different role or do what it does better to justify the risk/reward. Lowering the points was something but I think it misses the mark of what the ask was. I really want the Storm Raptor to be better and any other model that is behind the power curve. This should help PP balance the game overall - and (hopefully) eventually get some adjustments to Legion as well. But then again, JVM is a stud so maybe I just need to get better? I would like to use something other than K1 dude spam though. I actually see the biggest problems in Legion are not its ability to be competitive, but rather... Dunno what term better to use than "player satisfaction". Perhaps "faction identity" or something. It's best summed up by issues with our themes. Primal Terrors: clearly very strong, but not what a lot of Legion players wanted and very little variety when on the table, for the most part. At least, that's the complaints I hear. Oracles of Annihilation: You can certainly make competent lists with it, but both the theme benefits (apparition for a unit, free points for beasts) make little sense for "sorcerer infantry" theme. Also dropping the max freebie slots/points from 4/20 to 3/16 because that was "broken" and then giving out even more points/slots to other themes at the same time was a slap in the face. It really didn't need to happen. Children of the Dragon: the problems with this theme are too numerous to mention and have been discussed thoroughly. Ravens of War: This theme feels hyper specialized but I think it's actually pretty well designed. I think players feel frustrated with it because it is so specialized, making it difficult to run. I think it really shines as part of a pairing, but it would definitely be the part of the pairing you lean on. I think you can make good-ish lists with all these themes, but they are kinda limited, not intuitive, and sometimes just feel "inferior" when I compare them to themes from other factions. Everytime I look at making a Legion list, apart from a few very select lists, I always end up thinking "if I played this other faction, I could make this same list but much better." Some of that latter I think is a matter faction identity: what exactly is Legion's schtick? When I ask myself that question, I almost invariably think "well it's X, only this other faction has that but better". None of this stops top tier players from winning. But it does make the rest of us feel "well, crap. No matter what I pick, it's not what I was looking for. Either I'm broken-cookie-cutter, someone-else-does-it-better, hyper-specialized, or flat-out-poorly-designed." Which is how I came to the term "player satisfaction"
|
|