|
Post by Azuresun on Oct 3, 2018 23:04:39 GMT
Radheim would not qualify. He is only allowed in one Theme and that one does not provide for any free solos, just for free Command Attachments and a certain 2-man unit. His points do go for it, but he doesn't qualify otherwise. Does any cavalry/Dragoon solo qualify to be free? The only other one I have familiarity with is Mercs, and Large Base solos do not qualify for being free there. Stannis Brocker in Kingmaker. But then again, it's Stannis Brocker.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 3, 2018 23:54:04 GMT
Which factions would you consider tight? Factions only matter anymore for fluff, for pairings and for shared casters and battlegroups. I should be better at describing what I mean. Each theme is separate and distinct and should be viewed as such. And the answer is, nearly any theme that's been given the CiD treatment. Cryx stands out as nearly the whole faction has gone through CiD. So do the Mk 3 limited release factions, for obvious reason that the whole faction has gone through CiD. But pick just about any theme that got a specific CiD and many of the small problems have been removed. Synergies have been optimized. Here's an example. Exalted just got it's CiD week 1 rules. Putting aside most issues, they changed the structure of the theme benefits. Previously one of the benefits was that beasts gained Death Rage. 1) it's unfortunate that they're giving benefits to the smaller percentage of the list. You'll be taking 60+ (plus free models) points of Exalted models. You'll take maybe 30 points of Beasts. That's an inefficiency. 2) the benefit isn't so strong as to encourage list diversity. Death Rage in the optimal results in each of your dead beasts getting to kill/injure 1 enemy model. That would be cool in Imperial Warhost, where the sheer number of beasts would result in significant extra carnage of your opponent. But you're realistically talking about 2-3 extra attacks per game in this instance, just not a strong benefit. 3) Because of the way Skorne and it's beasts were designed it's even worse as the dying beasts won't be enraged unless you're getting killed on your own turn. More inefficiency. They replaced the benefit with one that effects Exalted models instead, yay! That's what I mean. Skorne is full of that sort of thing. Our gargs gained no theme benefits (at least not the full aspect) because they all were movement based. Hyper Aggressive, Death Rage, Swift Hunter... So in a game where the producer really want you to buy and use the big bases, you're sacrificing efficiency to do so. In DoA I can take a grand total of 11 pts in free stuff, max. That's not very strong. MoW can't have any shooting beats because it's not fluffy I guess (ignore that 2/3 of the MOST honorable Cataphracts use ranged weapons...). This has the unintended consequence of locking out the Shaman, who is damn near critical for melee beasts because he can hand out rush without your caster having to be right there. (and if we're picking nits in the fluff, the Skorne view their beasts as slaves and tools... just like the minions who have guns you can totally take in that theme...) I already talked about the point threshold thing for Imperial Warhost in a previous post. You can only take the Paingiver Master Tormentor in DoA, but you can take minions in all lists. (I'm not saying he should be available everywhere, but another theme or 2 would be nice) Most factions have their general support solos in 1/2 or more of their themes. I think the PGMT qualifies. Anyway, I'm sure most factions have these sorts of problems and I'm just not close enough to know what they are. But the CiD themes don't, or have them only rarely. Skorne is only now getting a proper CiD (and even then, it looks like the smallest of the "actual" release themes, 3 solos and a battle engine) so I expect the problem to somewhat (and if only just locally to mostly its theme) alleviate.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 3, 2018 23:57:42 GMT
Fane Knight Skeryth Issyen, rather infamously. Oh my god, Ret and Mercs get the most points mileage out of free solos. Mercs can get in the 24+ range right? And Ret can get as high as what, 18-19 in Defenders? Jealous....
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 3, 2018 23:59:54 GMT
Radheim would not qualify. He is only allowed in one Theme and that one does not provide for any free solos, just for free Command Attachments and a certain 2-man unit. His points do go for it, but he doesn't qualify otherwise. Does any cavalry/Dragoon solo qualify to be free? The only other one I have familiarity with is Mercs, and Large Base solos do not qualify for being free there. Stannis Brocker in Kingmaker. But then again, it's Stannis MotherFiretruckin Brocker. Fixed that for you...
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 4, 2018 0:09:03 GMT
My primary opponent these days has been playing Skorne and only Skorne since they released and is terrifying with everything you put in front of him at this point. What solos does Skorne have access to that are 4+ points? I don't feel that my Troll solos are really game breaking generally, but they have a synergistic faction to help them. Something I do think Skorne sometimes struggles with. Void Spirits are downright nasty. FWIW, Imperial Warhost is overall better than Power of Dhunia and sees more play at this point.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 4, 2018 0:33:38 GMT
I do find a it a little concerning that over a year after the process has started, the CID process and its implementation is still a divisive issue. Has PP even given any indication that they would revise the process of CID itself, based on feedback? A CID of CID?
I think the problem with CID is, it's still very uncertain what the desired power level of the game as a whole is. So everyone ends up making their own guesses as to if a proposed model is too strong (over the desired gamewide power level) or too weak (under it).
This is my impression as well. PP doesn't do baseline testing, they only use vague and ambiguous language like "too good" or "too strong", but never define the baseline to judge what any of it means. And once that's out the door you get the droves of players demanding that their Heavy should reliably one-round a Khador jack because apparently ARM 20 with 34 boxes is a reasonable point to place that baseline.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 4, 2018 0:56:16 GMT
I think the problem with CID is, it's still very uncertain what the desired power level of the game as a whole is. So everyone ends up making their own guesses as to if a proposed model is too strong (over the desired gamewide power level) or too weak (under it).
This is my impression as well. PP doesn't do baseline testing, they only use vague and ambiguous language like "too good" or "too strong", but never define the baseline to judge what any of it means. And once that's out the door you get the droves of players demanding that their Heavy should reliably one-round a Khador jack because apparently ARM 20 with 34 boxes is a reasonable point to place that baseline. I've had the exact same frustration. I want the power creep to stop but I have a much harder case when I can't say exactly where. The things that I would have pointed to as to where a model, theme, or faction should be balanced have since been left in the dust. We've gone from wondering if Warders should cost 10/16 to giving Crucible Guard an arguably better unit for 8/13. In particular, there's this trope about how "pillow-fisted" some model supposedly is because it can't one-round a Juggernaut with average rolls when both are completely unbuffed. Then what is the point of high ARM and boxes? Let alone on warjacks. It doesn't make any sense to be able to take out a system if the model is not intended to survive the round anyway. That is just one of the stupid arguments that we keep having and I'm sick of it too. You know what can't kill a Juggernaut unbuffed with average rolls? Another Juggernaut.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 4, 2018 1:32:30 GMT
This is my impression as well. PP doesn't do baseline testing, they only use vague and ambiguous language like "too good" or "too strong", but never define the baseline to judge what any of it means. And once that's out the door you get the droves of players demanding that their Heavy should reliably one-round a Khador jack because apparently ARM 20 with 34 boxes is a reasonable point to place that baseline. I've had the exact same frustration. I want the power creep to stop but I have a much harder case when I can't say exactly where. The things that I would have pointed to as to where a model, theme, or faction should be balanced have since been left in the dust. We've gone from wondering if Warders should cost 10/16 to giving Crucible Guard an arguably better unit for 8/13. In particular, there's this trope about how "pillow-fisted" some model supposedly is because it can't one-round a Juggernaut with average rolls when both are completely unbuffed. Then what is the point of high ARM and boxes? Let alone on warjacks. It doesn't make any sense to be able to take out a system if the model is not intended to survive the round anyway. That is just one of the stupid arguments that we keep having and I'm sick of it too. You know what can't kill a Juggernaut unbuffed with average rolls? Another Juggernaut. As it just so happens, the stated baseline for the test of the Bronzeback is... Bronzeback Titan: The Bronze Back is a melee powerhouse. Destroying basically anything it can get in it's melee range while being a reasonably durable beast with minor utility is what we want from the Bronze Back. Sounds like it's meant to one round a Juggernaut unbuffed...
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Oct 4, 2018 1:45:52 GMT
The point about Khador warjacks being resilient by design is well taken. Most factions asking for models that can one round a Juggernaught is too high a baseline.
However, that doesn't preclude at least one faction having a good selection of models that can be up to task. Skorne in particular seems a good candidate, and likely PP designed them with ultra heavies by design. I haven't mathed it out, but I suspect the Soldier and Gladiator are up to task, assuming Enrage and free charge. The Bronzeback absolutely is. This is balanced by the general lack of native Pathfinder, and low native threat ranges.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 4, 2018 3:09:16 GMT
I've had the exact same frustration. I want the power creep to stop but I have a much harder case when I can't say exactly where. The things that I would have pointed to as to where a model, theme, or faction should be balanced have since been left in the dust. We've gone from wondering if Warders should cost 10/16 to giving Crucible Guard an arguably better unit for 8/13. In particular, there's this trope about how "pillow-fisted" some model supposedly is because it can't one-round a Juggernaut with average rolls when both are completely unbuffed. Then what is the point of high ARM and boxes? Let alone on warjacks. It doesn't make any sense to be able to take out a system if the model is not intended to survive the round anyway. That is just one of the stupid arguments that we keep having and I'm sick of it too. You know what can't kill a Juggernaut unbuffed with average rolls? Another Juggernaut. As it just so happens, the stated baseline for the test of the Bronzeback is... Bronzeback Titan: The Bronze Back is a melee powerhouse. Destroying basically anything it can get in it's melee range while being a reasonably durable beast with minor utility is what we want from the Bronze Back. Sounds like it's meant to one round a Juggernaut unbuffed... I'm sure that they are assuming you will have Enrage and a free charge on it, at a minimum. That's not "unbuffed," but frankly, splitting hairs over something like that is just another thing I'm getting tired of. People pore over everything The Company That Makes the Game says instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Some players rules lawyer things that aren't even rules. This is one reason why The Official Forums for any game are always the worst. I'm reminded of early in Mk3 when they said that most tourneys would probably be 75 points Masters Format and that instantly became an unwritten law that we can never play anything else. Or when they said that CID might look at the top and bottom 5% and people tried to do vector calculus to figure out exactly how many models that would be, or what to do if 6% of a faction's models were underperforming and only 4% of them were too good.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Oct 4, 2018 3:53:05 GMT
My man, I put it up there because I thought it was pretty funny. You going on about how that's not a reasonable bar to be at and PP basically saying "yep, that's the bar." I know my wry sarcastic sense of humor doesn't always come across the internet real well. But imagine I used a "British comedy tone."
Also, I don't want to fight about it or anything, but I'm pretty sure we should consider Beast Handlers enraging at least, unbuffed. It's the mechanic the factions beasts were built around and it takes almost no effort. Same with Choir singing battle. Free charges takes a smidge more effort and planning and can probably be considered "buffed". Imo.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Oct 4, 2018 4:55:04 GMT
Yeah, something like a Bronzeback soloing a juggernaut is totally reasonable. What I'd like to see more of is ways to disable jacks and beasts temporarily while still allowing them to recover by spending more resources - and those resources don't have to be focus. Do something like blue in magic, where let's say where we're designing a monstrosity that take D3+1 damage to cancel a focus allocation within 6". If we can reach a point where there are 2-3 ways in each faction to deal with a scary threat with the expenditure of your own resources then we can have a more balanced game instead of everything being measured in damage potential.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 4, 2018 6:05:55 GMT
A Bronzeback soloing a Juggy is realistically a 20 point investment to take out 34 ARM 20 boxes. That's pretty reasonable.
If PP were to say "We expect a 20 point investment to take out ARM 20 34 boxes constantly" then you could set the baseline there.
20 points btw is also around what a full unit of weapon masters cost.
It's very reasonable. Expecting the same to happen at lower points because "herpderp trade favorably" is not.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 4, 2018 9:06:43 GMT
Speaking in points means only MAT/POW/#Attacks matter which is a huge problem.
|
|
|
Post by MrHaystacks on Oct 4, 2018 10:45:27 GMT
Is it me (I know little about skorne) or does the CID look really... Sparse? 3 new Solo's (1 a character) + Battle Engine. Changes to Makeda 3, a small (but interesting) boost to ardus, a couple 1 pt changes and extra boxes to titans, improvements to the hydras spray and cost, shooting gallery to the mammoth (but walls still make it sad) and that's it. It doesn't sound like much due to the huge restrictions within the theme (1 unit, 6 solos and BE) available. The list feels built before you start.
Like I said it maybe just me not knowing what the faction needs and I am ignorant to the impact (and if so please say so), or they are taking a "softly softly" approach and will drop bigger changes next week.
|
|