skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 12, 2018 0:59:26 GMT
I made thread asking for a collection of all the off forum dev feedback, some one posted this: Quote: "Soles saying it is likely we will be allowed to take Ancestral Guardians with Zaal1 & Void Spirits with Mordikaar1: Originally posted by PPS_Soles View Post We are considering adding rules to the Zaals that will allow them to take Ancestral Guardians in any army. Ditto Mordikaar and his Void Spirits. That said it is very unlikely these changes will be part of this CID because we do not want to change the focus off the The Exalted theme force. If we made this change (and I think it is likely), it will be added to the CID errata when it goes live in coming weeks. cid.privateerpress.com/forum/theorycrafting-listbuilding/t-l-exalted-week-1/100630-ancestral-guardians-zaal1-and-availability-outside-the-exalted " I couldn't be happier about this development. I say development because I asked a dev in person about 9 months ago whether something like this could ever happen. I was told absolutely not, it undermines themes. 180's seem to be a strong part of pp practice!
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Oct 12, 2018 7:59:35 GMT
180's seem to be a strong part of pp practice! Surely people can't get upset about making a change that most agree is for the better... and hold it against them. I like the idea of some sort of rule to allow models to take others out of theme. Agree Constance and Precursors is a good one. Struggling to think of any others where a companion model is so tied to the core of the caster and not just a nice to have. The threshold needs to be more than naming another model on the card (eg the Sorscha flank comment), it needs to be core. However, it would be interesting to see it used for 'fluff' reasons too - eg letting Shae take Hawk in any list (bad example since I think there's no list they can't be taken together).
|
|
|
Post by MrHaystacks on Oct 12, 2018 8:36:10 GMT
I see your point. I'm not up on skorne much so thanks for explaining that. In that case are there any other casters in the game in the same boat?
|
|
|
Post by dazzla on Oct 12, 2018 10:32:47 GMT
I see your point. I'm not up on skorne much so thanks for explaining that. In that case are there any other casters in the game in the same boat? I would argue that Vindictus is more reliant on Holy Zealots to function then Mordikaar 1 is reliant on Void Spirits.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 12, 2018 12:49:48 GMT
I see your point. I'm not up on skorne much so thanks for explaining that. In that case are there any other casters in the game in the same boat? I would argue that Vindictus is more reliant on Holy Zealots to function then Mordikaar 1 is reliant on Void Spirits. Yes, but Vindictus isn't more reliant on Holy Zealots than Mordikaar is on living infantry. Living infantry isn't something he gets in the Exalted theme, which is where void spirits live. Not arguing Vindictus shouldn't get access to Zealots, just putting things in perspective. I'd say, if themes we're set out different, Fiona should always get her Cultist Sea Dogs. But it's not really a problem.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 12, 2018 16:28:35 GMT
The threshold needs to be more than naming another model on the card (eg the Sorscha flank comment), it needs to be core. Why not Sorscha? you can remove Flank from her card and literally the rest of her kit is your bog standard "Here's a spell to help your jacks" and "Here´s a spell to help your troops". With abilities that Vanilla you could safely throw her in a Battle Box. Iron Flesh + Jack Spell is such a played out Khador Trope that the if you deny her Field Marshal the only reason you would play her is because you have a sweet looking Samus Aran converstion because at the very least Butcher_1 cranks damage to 11, and Irusk_1 runs troops way better.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 12, 2018 18:35:58 GMT
She also has a 1 turn cloudwall, which differentiates her in an important way.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 12, 2018 20:24:24 GMT
She also has a 1 turn cloudwall, which differentiates her in an important way. Is it better than Zerkova_1's cloud wall though? Without the Accuracy and Damage Buff from flank you're better off playing Z_1. Lady Z can drop a cloud wall every turn, can hand out Ghostly when needed, and has a serious control Feat. If you want Movement Shenanigans and Counter Charge with Stoke the Fires, you're better off playing Karchev. Negate S_3's ability to Flank and instead of being the flagship MoW caster she was designed to be, she turns into a benchwarmer along with Old Witch, Vlad_3 and Butcher_2. If PP is considering the possibility of certain casters bringing in Units to switch on their gameplay, then by all means S_3 is a prime candidate for it.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 12, 2018 21:11:28 GMT
Look dude, you want to hate on S3 out of theme. Fine, I don't care. I personally think she's terribly underwhelming in every possible aspect, but better players than me have told me I'm wrong. I trust their judgement on a faction I don't have an up to date handle on.
The point is, she can play a little more like Butcher1 while having a cloudwall. It's one of the weaknesses of Khador, in my experience, that players say "I want to do X, and Y is clearly the best at X so Y is always the best option" when there's several other choices that do X well AND come with other bits of game.
I'm not looking for a fight, or a debate or to put you down. This'll be my last word on this. Reply if you want, I'm just saying...
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Oct 13, 2018 3:58:57 GMT
She also has a 1 turn cloudwall, which differentiates her in an important way. Is it better than Zerkova_1's cloud wall though? Without the Accuracy and Damage Buff from flank you're better off playing Z_1. Lady Z can drop a cloud wall every turn, can hand out Ghostly when needed, and has a serious control Feat. If you want Movement Shenanigans and Counter Charge with Stoke the Fires, you're better off playing Karchev. Negate S_3's ability to Flank and instead of being the flagship MoW caster she was designed to be, she turns into a benchwarmer along with Old Witch, Vlad_3 and Butcher_2. If PP is considering the possibility of certain casters bringing in Units to switch on their gameplay, then by all means S_3 is a prime candidate for it. Zerk1 doesn't come with a jack speed boost or iron flesh though. Flank is big...it really is, but she's definitely a cloud wall with better infantry and jack support than zerk1, and her jack buff is in just about every way better than boundless (though it does restrict your jack selection for sure) IN FAIRNESS THOUGH... Vlad2 and the irusks way outshine her on infantry support, so if you aren't combined armsing...
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 13, 2018 7:26:24 GMT
Surely people can't get upset about making a change that most agree is for the better... and hold it against them. I like the idea of some sort of rule to allow models to take others out of theme. Agree Constance and Precursors is a good one. Struggling to think of any others where a companion model is so tied to the core of the caster and not just a nice to have. The threshold needs to be more than naming another model on the card (eg the Sorscha flank comment), it needs to be core. However, it would be interesting to see it used for 'fluff' reasons too - eg letting Shae take Hawk in any list (bad example since I think there's no list they can't be taken together). Totally can. Largely because the way they handle communications (particularly Soles) is to be very dismissive about concerns or ideas that don't fit into their general plan for the game, then (eventually) turn around and present it as their own idea, or (alternatively) like it was 'the plan' all along. It's insulting to the playerbase, and frankly, it makes me respect them less each time they do it. Same goes for the way that they like to insist that 'X list is not a problem/not being considered for nerfs' then turn around and nerf the offending list a few months later...as anyone with a brain should have realized that they would.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Oct 13, 2018 8:15:36 GMT
Surely people can't get upset about making a change that most agree is for the better... and hold it against them. I like the idea of some sort of rule to allow models to take others out of theme. Agree Constance and Precursors is a good one. Struggling to think of any others where a companion model is so tied to the core of the caster and not just a nice to have. The threshold needs to be more than naming another model on the card (eg the Sorscha flank comment), it needs to be core. However, it would be interesting to see it used for 'fluff' reasons too - eg letting Shae take Hawk in any list (bad example since I think there's no list they can't be taken together). Totally can. Largely because the way they handle communications (particularly Soles) is to be very dismissive about concerns or ideas that don't fit into their general plan for the game, then (eventually) turn around and present it as their own idea, or (alternatively) like it was 'the plan' all along. It's insulting to the playerbase, and frankly, it makes me respect them less each time they do it. Same goes for the way that they like to insist that 'X list is not a problem/not being considered for nerfs' then turn around and nerf the offending list a few months later...as anyone with a brain should have realized that they would. It's true. Not to get too off topic here, but the communication from PP is pretty bad. You might even say awful. Their dismissive attitude, silence, tone, declarations and flip flopping has really driven people away from the game. It is not a small amount of players in my meta who played for years only to all but abandon the game and cite PP's communication (or lack thereof) as some of the reasons why. Sad to say, despite the game itself being better than ever the company and product and staff all seem to have been mishandled for a while now. Wish MW would step away and leave things in the hands of someone more capable. Pretty much all the people who made WarmaHordes WarmaHordes have gone. At any rate, soft CID or errata to give warcaster "bonds" or "special issue" for certain models or solos seems like a good idea on the surface. I like to think it would open up some more themes, but it could have the effect of pigeonholing lists and constraining list design for those casters. There are people who dislike themes as-is already because of this issue. Is it a desgin-flaw of those warlocks/warcasters, then, that depend so heavily on a specific model/unit to function? Or is this a good and desirable design niche?
|
|
|
Post by minmaximus on Oct 13, 2018 12:06:44 GMT
I think when it comes to special issue models, the question comes down to if it opens up possibilities for the warnoun or not. So for Ancestral Guardians, letting 15 points of solos come along with Zaal so he can use his Kovaas in any list probably gives him more options and make him more viable- he wants something The Exalted doesn't give him, but he needs the Ancestral Guardians for a lot of his kit to work. Likewise, Mordikaar gains a lot from Void Spirits but needs living infantry- not having them outside of The Exalted pretty much writes Mordikaar out of the game. Making a case for Constance: she is an infantry caster who wants to run Morrowans, but her only unit option is in a Warjack theme, which she can't run well. However if she got Precursor Knights in any theme, both Storm Division and Gravediggers give her options to fill out the rest of her list with infantry besides Sword Knights and Long Gunners.
Contrast this with say, giving Siege all trenchers in any theme, in which case Siege1 is just "Gravediggers, but with a couple ATGMs in it" or letting Sorscha3 have Man O War's- in those cases, its far more likely that it turns into Gravediggers or Armored Korps but with a few solos or a unit that has nothing to do with either. In those cases, you're not enabling them to keep their thematic/synergistic solos/units, you're enabling them to take non-thematic solos/units while still having their theme stuff. Its not something where there's a hard rule but I think its a mostly-obvious "know it when you see it" sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by kovnikninehouse on Oct 13, 2018 16:04:34 GMT
Well how about Sorcha2 with her desperate pase WG unit ability. Why not let her take a WG weapon unit with her in any theme?
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 13, 2018 16:43:53 GMT
"This caster can always bring X" is a good idea as long as it's used sparingly, and doesn't get to a point where all the Madraks can always bring Horthol because they were in the same short story once.
|
|