zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 8:35:36 GMT
11" is slow. Real threat ranges start at 12", preferably 13". The greater issue is of course the lightning-fast 8" run. RAT4 with d3+1 shots is mediocra at 38p. Melee damage is good. ARM is good.
SR18 is not an excuse. It's the scenario pack we have to play. And that scenario pack is fast. So if a model can't get where it has to fast, it has no place in the scenario package. Gladiator is meh. Him hitting hard used to be the case. But nowadays everyone else hits harder and tanks better than they used to and the Titans have just fallen behind in that regard. Also SPD4. Pass.
I'd just kinda like our heavies to be competitively viable for the first time since ever. I hope PP sees the issues currently preventing that.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Sept 24, 2018 10:35:48 GMT
With that standart there are no good models.
S&M, for example, threats 10", POW 16 ARM 16 26 boxes... utter garbage. Cage Rager is an 8" threat POW 17 lump of boxes with a bunch of conditional abilities... utter trash.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 10:37:40 GMT
In order to address the Mammoth, we need to identify what we expect out of it. Are you expecting a tough artillery piece that can defend itself, a giant beast that charges in while doing some annoying shots on the way in, or a do anything beast that annihilates with its cannon while beating things to pulp? That is a good point. I think the intent is that it sits in a zone, shoots for 2-3 rounds and then commits. So basically like a colossal. Now what does it need to do that? I don't think it is that much:
1) RAT5. Because RAT4 is just terrible. Alternatively AoE4 could work, but I'd prefer the former. Either would make its shooting more reliable. Maybe RNG14?
2) Rush-while-running. I wish all Titans would gain that rule. Basically like the heavy boiler on the Kodiak, but worded to explicitly give Rush while running. That would have the advantage of including pathfinder (which the Kodiak has baseline) and the limitation of not stacking with Rush from other sources (such as the animus). Alternatively SPD5, but I think the former is more elegant. Either would help it get into the fight in time. 3) Either a points discount (35-36p) or an actual animus. Counterblast is very corner-case for a 38p model. Maybe an animus that grants high explosive?
The rule mentioned under 2) could be worded like this: Unstoppable advance: This model gains Rush while running (insert rule text of Rush here).
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 10:38:46 GMT
With that standart there are no good models. S&M, for example, threats 10", POW 16 ARM 16 26 boxes... utter garbage. Cage Rager is an 8" threat POW 17 lump of boxes with a bunch of conditional abilities... utter trash. That is such a dishonest statement, I won't even bother answering that in seriousness. Also really misses the point.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Sept 24, 2018 11:37:53 GMT
With that standart there are no good models. S&M, for example, threats 10", POW 16 ARM 16 26 boxes... utter garbage. Cage Rager is an 8" threat POW 17 lump of boxes with a bunch of conditional abilities... utter trash. That is such a dishonest statement, I won't even bother answering that in seriousness. Also really misses the point. Dishonest? You say 11" is slow but most warjacks/beasts threat below 11" with 12"+ being clear exceptions. If 11" is slow them warjacks/beasts are slow by design and have to rely on other factors to thrive.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Sept 24, 2018 11:40:58 GMT
With that standart there are no good models. S&M, for example, threats 10", POW 16 ARM 16 26 boxes... utter garbage. Cage Rager is an 8" threat POW 17 lump of boxes with a bunch of conditional abilities... utter trash. That is such a dishonest statement, I won't even bother answering that in seriousness. Also really misses the point. It was over dramatic, but that's because he was responding to your bit of nonsense. Threat ranges START at 12"? If we're talking about beasts, how many in the stable do that on their own? The answer is none. So, since you hard pass on Gladiators, I guess you only play X2 or Morghoul1? Because those are the only casters getting your beasts to threaten 13". Ohh, maybe some hot Makeda1 beast action?
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 12:18:22 GMT
That is such a dishonest statement, I won't even bother answering that in seriousness. Also really misses the point. It was over dramatic, but that's because he was responding to your bit of nonsense. Threat ranges START at 12"? If we're talking about beasts, how many in the stable do that on their own? The answer is none. So, since you hard pass on Gladiators, I guess you only play X2 or Morghoul1? Because those are the only casters getting your beasts to threaten 13". Ohh, maybe some hot Makeda1 beast action? How is it nonsense? 13" is a good benchmark, because it is how far the Turtle threatens. That may or may not be good for the game overall, but it is the benchmark that things have to compare themselves against. It's not the only benchmark, or break-point, for exaple there's another one at 16". I also never said anything about starting at 13". The person I quoted mentioned 11" with buffs as being fast. And it simply isn't. I just don't know what else to say about that. And to clear up another misunderstanding, I'm not talking about threat range as the central issue. I'm talking about actually getting up the table, which our heavies (outside of the Archidon, which incidentally does threaten 11" natively) struggle with. Lastly, not every model has to threaten 13" natively or even 10". But whether or not a model does so changes how it can be played and what else it needs to bring to the table in order to be viable. And in case of our Elephants with their native threat of 8-9" it's just not enough.
But sure, if Skorne get tons of free Gremlin Swarms, I'll gladly take SPD4-5 beasts with good stats. But we don't have Gremlin Swarms and our Heavies are not SPD5 and their stats are not as good. And that makes the comparison with Grymkin rather dishonest, especially when citing stats that don't take into account corpse tokens (or other Grymkin defensive tech). No, I don't want our heavies to be as good as Grymkin heavies (and the tech surrounding them). That would be bonkers OP. But I want them to work.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 24, 2018 13:01:51 GMT
The goal really should be to get the Mammoth, and all Gargantua, to be on the same footing as most of the colossals. This is especially true for the Mammoth, as he bears the most resemblance to them: slow, meaty, good melee output but too slow to get there, and big guns.
However, its ranged output is weak By comparison to those colossals. It's too slow to have meaningful melee output. Lastly, it's pretty expensive for how "able to take it in the face" that it is.
A "melee only" gargantuan is probably not viable as a concept. Their base size is too large, too unwieldy, too easily blocked for them to serve this function. Gargantua all have "melee as a backup" thanks to their massive size, but it probably won't work as their primary means of providing meaningful effect on the battlefield.
So I'm inclined to address to have it function as an artillery piece first, resembling the Conquest. Given the sheer size of the cannons on the model, this doesn't seem unreasonable from a fluff perspective. Compared to the Conquest right now, it has significantly worse use in an anti infantry role, worse survivability, and worse threat range. It's also worth mentioning that I've literally never seen Conquest in a list, so even if we are chasing that paradigm, the Mammoth would need to do it better to be considered a success.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Sept 24, 2018 14:58:16 GMT
It was over dramatic, but that's because he was responding to your bit of nonsense. Threat ranges START at 12"? If we're talking about beasts, how many in the stable do that on their own? The answer is none. So, since you hard pass on Gladiators, I guess you only play X2 or Morghoul1? Because those are the only casters getting your beasts to threaten 13". Ohh, maybe some hot Makeda1 beast action? How is it nonsense? 13" is a good benchmark, because it is how far the Turtle threatens. That may or may not be good for the game overall, but it is the benchmark that things have to compare themselves against. It's not the only benchmark, or break-point, for exaple there's another one at 16". I also never said anything about starting at 13". The person I quoted mentioned 11" with buffs as being fast. And it simply isn't. I just don't know what else to say about that. And to clear up another misunderstanding, I'm not talking about threat range as the central issue. I'm talking about actually getting up the table, which our heavies (outside of the Archidon, which incidentally does threaten 11" natively) struggle with. Lastly, not every model has to threaten 13" natively or even 10". But whether or not a model does so changes how it can be played and what else it needs to bring to the table in order to be viable. And in case of our Elephants with their native threat of 8-9" it's just not enough.
But sure, if Skorne get tons of free Gremlin Swarms, I'll gladly take SPD4-5 beasts with good stats. But we don't have Gremlin Swarms and our Heavies are not SPD5 and their stats are not as good. And that makes the comparison with Grymkin rather dishonest, especially when citing stats that don't take into account corpse tokens (or other Grymkin defensive tech). No, I don't want our heavies to be as good as Grymkin heavies (and the tech surrounding them). That would be bonkers OP. But I want them to work.
So your benchmark (derpy) is the best point for point model in the game? Good, I'm sure this will go well. Seriously, that's bonkers. And wtf with the 16" benchmark? How many battlegroup models in the game threaten 16" in melee? Even with all the buffs. Not that many, and even fewer beasts. The absolute maximum you can go in Skorne is 15". You can jank Makeda1 Jackhammers to go further, but unless it's critical or winning the game, that's bad jank. I don't know wtf you're on about, but clearly you don't want to play Skorne in anything that approaches the traditional way. We're not the alpha from forever away faction. We never will be. Deal with it or get a new faction. Because right now you're trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Sept 24, 2018 15:18:02 GMT
2) Rush-while-running. I wish all Titans would gain that rule. Basically like the heavy boiler on the Kodiak, but worded to explicitly give Rush while running. That would have the advantage of including pathfinder (which the Kodiak has baseline) and the limitation of not stacking with Rush from other sources (such as the animus). Alternatively SPD5, but I think the former is more elegant. Either would help it get into the fight in time. The rule mentioned under 2) could be worded like this: Unstoppable advance: This model gains Rush while running (insert rule text of Rush here).
Or not list Rush at all and just state, "When this model Runs it gains Pathfinder can can move three times its SPD instead of two." End result is the same. The goal really should be to get the Mammoth, and all Gargantua, to be on the same footing as most of the colossals. This is especially true for the Mammoth, as he bears the most resemblance to them: slow, meaty, good melee output but too slow to get there, and big guns. However, its ranged output is weak By comparison to those colossals. It's too slow to have meaningful melee output. Lastly, it's pretty expensive for how "able to take it in the face" that it is. A "melee only" gargantuan is probably not viable as a concept. Their base size is too large, too unwieldy, too easily blocked for them to serve this function. Gargantua all have "melee as a backup" thanks to their massive size, but it probably won't work as their primary means of providing meaningful effect on the battlefield. So I'm inclined to address to have it function as an artillery piece first, resembling the Conquest. Given the sheer size of the cannons on the model, this doesn't seem unreasonable from a fluff perspective. Compared to the Conquest right now, it has significantly worse use in an anti infantry role, worse survivability, and worse threat range. It's also worth mentioning that I've literally never seen Conquest in a list, so even if we are chasing that paradigm, the Mammoth would need to do it better to be considered a success. Which aspect of its gun is considered the downgrade from Mk 2? The AOE or RoF? I remember the Mammoth being considered the only viable Gargantuan because of its gun. It gained 2" in Range, lost 1" on AOE, RAT increased by 1, and went from RoF: 3 to D3+1. Should the gun get an effect, such as Critical Pitch or Critical Knockdown?
|
|
granor
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by granor on Sept 24, 2018 15:21:09 GMT
So your benchmark (derpy) is the best point for point model in the game? Good, I'm sure this will go well. Seriously, that's bonkers. This is honestly my biggest concern. The Mammoth is competing against 2 turtles in winds and imperial warhost and 2 SG in exalted. It can also be run in DoA where it doesn't compete against any battle engines. So where do we want it to fit? In winds or exalted not only does it compete for space from the battle engines but it doesn't give you free points like they do in those themes. I mean there can be something with the fact that it costs you WB points instead of from your 75 list points as exalted and winds wants to spend 40 to 60 points of the list on stuff that gets you free stuff.
I just have this feeling that if it doesn't compete with the BE it doesn't get brought to the table. Even if it does compete there could be issues bringing 3 huge bases in one list. Though honestly I am not sure exalted wants to run two battle engines. Maybe that is fine. Maybe the entire point of the model is something pretty that really isn't competitive but is worth more than it is now.
Maybe it can compete with 2 SG just fine with only a few tweeks? I honestly am not sure, I have only just started playing exalted with one SG. I have 3 games in and I am only getting the feel of the list so far. And I have played my mammoth in mk3 less than 10 times.
|
|
granor
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by granor on Sept 24, 2018 15:32:35 GMT
Which aspect of its gun is considered the downgrade from Mk 2? The AOE or RoF? I remember the Mammoth being considered the only viable Gargantuan because of its gun. It gained 2" in Range, lost 1" on AOE, RAT increased by 1, and went from RoF: 3 to D3+1. The big downgrade was not being able to put snipe on the gun anymore. So the range used to be effectively 14 and now it is 12. This did take a bunch of points and that was a problem in mk2 but it was considered generally a good package. The AOE is less of a problem but some infantry you really needed good blast damage for in mk2 and the mammoth kind of worked there but I don't know if that is the case for MK3 as the high def infantry I can think of are blast immune somehow.
If the AOE is supposed to kill high def infantry it seems like it would need a continuous effect to do that.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 15:54:52 GMT
How is it nonsense? 13" is a good benchmark, because it is how far the Turtle threatens. That may or may not be good for the game overall, but it is the benchmark that things have to compare themselves against. It's not the only benchmark, or break-point, for exaple there's another one at 16". I also never said anything about starting at 13". The person I quoted mentioned 11" with buffs as being fast. And it simply isn't. I just don't know what else to say about that. And to clear up another misunderstanding, I'm not talking about threat range as the central issue. I'm talking about actually getting up the table, which our heavies (outside of the Archidon, which incidentally does threaten 11" natively) struggle with. Lastly, not every model has to threaten 13" natively or even 10". But whether or not a model does so changes how it can be played and what else it needs to bring to the table in order to be viable. And in case of our Elephants with their native threat of 8-9" it's just not enough.
But sure, if Skorne get tons of free Gremlin Swarms, I'll gladly take SPD4-5 beasts with good stats. But we don't have Gremlin Swarms and our Heavies are not SPD5 and their stats are not as good. And that makes the comparison with Grymkin rather dishonest, especially when citing stats that don't take into account corpse tokens (or other Grymkin defensive tech). No, I don't want our heavies to be as good as Grymkin heavies (and the tech surrounding them). That would be bonkers OP. But I want them to work.
So your benchmark (derpy) is the best point for point model in the game? Good, I'm sure this will go well. Seriously, that's bonkers. And wtf with the 16" benchmark? How many battlegroup models in the game threaten 16" in melee? Even with all the buffs. Not that many, and even fewer beasts. The absolute maximum you can go in Skorne is 15". You can jank Makeda1 Jackhammers to go further, but unless it's critical or winning the game, that's bad jank. I don't know wtf you're on about, but clearly you don't want to play Skorne in anything that approaches the traditional way. We're not the alpha from forever away faction. We never will be. Deal with it or get a new faction. Because right now you're trolling. For better or worse, yes. Models like the Turtle are the benchmark for speed. And just to be 100% clear here, I don't want our heavies to be on the power level of the turtle, I'd rather have the two meet somewhere in the middle. 13" is also the threat of a rushed Archidon or an Angelius with Playing God (without Slipstream). It's not so rare among good models. 16" is the threat of most models in an Abby2 list and generally the highest melee threat you have to plan for, with a few outliers like Ninja Pig or Arkadius. Fun fact btw, maximum magical-christmas-land threat for Mak1 Molik is 21" (17" before sidesteps). Maybe the word "break point" would have been better than "benchmark".
I am on about wanting to run more than 8" without having to bend over backwards. I also don't want to play these models the traditional way, which is on the shelf. Maybe it is time to make them actually good? Why are you so opposed to that? Every other faction can have good heavies, why not us? Why do we have to only have one way of approaching the game? In fact, we do have excellent alpha potential. Funline threatens anywhere between 20"-23" (with Fatty's arcs threatening even farther). Cats go to 15.5" threat without caster support. Mak2Swoosies threaten 14" with vengeance. And what do all of these models have in common? They actually see play in actual tournaments. I don't want all of our models to be lightning-fast. I just want them to actually get to the action before my opponent is 5-0.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 15:55:34 GMT
So your benchmark (derpy) is the best point for point model in the game? Good, I'm sure this will go well. Seriously, that's bonkers. This is honestly my biggest concern. The Mammoth is competing against 2 turtles in winds and imperial warhost and 2 SG in exalted. It can also be run in DoA where it doesn't compete against any battle engines. So where do we want it to fit? In winds or exalted not only does it compete for space from the battle engines but it doesn't give you free points like they do in those themes. I mean there can be something with the fact that it costs you WB points instead of from your 75 list points as exalted and winds wants to spend 40 to 60 points of the list on stuff that gets you free stuff.
I just have this feeling that if it doesn't compete with the BE it doesn't get brought to the table. Even if it does compete there could be issues bringing 3 huge bases in one list. Though honestly I am not sure exalted wants to run two battle engines. Maybe that is fine. Maybe the entire point of the model is something pretty that really isn't competitive but is worth more than it is now.
Maybe it can compete with 2 SG just fine with only a few tweeks? I honestly am not sure, I have only just started playing exalted with one SG. I have 3 games in and I am only getting the feel of the list so far. And I have played my mammoth in mk3 less than 10 times.
Well that problem needs to be approached from both sides and I'm fairly confident it will.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Sept 24, 2018 15:58:00 GMT
2) Rush-while-running. I wish all Titans would gain that rule. Basically like the heavy boiler on the Kodiak, but worded to explicitly give Rush while running. That would have the advantage of including pathfinder (which the Kodiak has baseline) and the limitation of not stacking with Rush from other sources (such as the animus). Alternatively SPD5, but I think the former is more elegant. Either would help it get into the fight in time. The rule mentioned under 2) could be worded like this: Unstoppable advance: This model gains Rush while running (insert rule text of Rush here).
Or not list Rush at all and just state, "When this model Runs it gains Pathfinder can can move three times its SPD instead of two." End result is the same. We're probably arguing over details here, but I don't think that's so great an idea. That would give them an 18" run with Xerxis2, which is just too much. It would also give them a 12" base run, which I also think is too much. And it would stack with Rush, which is probably not such a good idea.
|
|