Zeykk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 135
|
Post by Zeykk on Oct 31, 2018 16:09:44 GMT
Ossrum with double battle engine can shut down entire factions, and the irregular version is really strong too. For instance, Cygnar can do nothing about it but hope for a casterkill that will never come if the Ossrum player play smart. More than that, in most competitive pairing you always see Ossrum. He is not like the most negative play experience like Ghost fleet or Haley2 in MK2/beginning of MK3, but he is easily one of the best caster in the game. So yeah, I think a little nerf (with the feat being an aura, or dropping of his spells for an other) would be nice to see from other factions perspective. Quite the hyperbole you have there. The Double Battle Engine list is by no means backbreaking or as heavy handed as you're claiming. Even Cygnar has options, and reliable ones (as Xintas has kindly pointed out). I think you should try tweaking your lists, casters you run, or even gameplan before crying for a nerf that isn't warranted. I don't know why people think he needs a nerf. He's a solid caster; he's not oppressive or meta warping. He's strong and consistent and in line with all other strong and consistent casters across factions. Also, as shoe mentioned, changing his feat to an aura doesn't make sense and adds unnecessary complications with the +SPD component. Us Merc players have had to consistently adapt to other factions' CIDs and powerhouse casters (all factions have 2-3 at the top of their faction); I would suggest that you do the same towards Ossrum. We could sit here and constantly complain about Skarre1 with 5 Stalkers and 2 Wraith Engines (or X caster with Y list). Or we could just learn to play around it and hope to make the most out of the matchup; I would suggest you do similar towards Ossrum. I guarantee you your faction has the tools to address him. The reason you see him in pairings is that he's strong and consistent and able to fill gaps left by our other casters in the current meta. If our other casters didn't have these gaps then you probably wouldn't see Ossrum as much; there are other casters that fill the same or similar gaps as Ossrum but have other issues (consistency). If Ossrum wasn't a consistent caster on the table then you wouldn't see him as often. For example, Crosse2 covers similar matchups that Ossrum does, however he is not as consistent as Ossrum in his application. Therefore, you see Ossrum more than Crosse2.
|
|
gmonkey
Junior Strategist
I, for one, welcome our Infernal Overlords.
Posts: 313
|
Post by gmonkey on Oct 31, 2018 18:19:02 GMT
Isn't it widely recognized that Ossrum is one of the strongest casters in the game?
|
|
Zeykk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 135
|
Post by Zeykk on Oct 31, 2018 21:53:44 GMT
Isn't it widely recognized that Ossrum is one of the strongest casters in the game? Yes, that is not what's being contested.
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Nov 1, 2018 7:57:52 GMT
I see Ossrum as a turd polisher, he takes average rhulic stuff and makes it shine. Nothing game breaking about that. Where I can see an issue is when he takes bunnies, who are far above average and makes them even better.
The feat, snipe, energize and bulldoze stacked on a cheap, hardhitting and (for a light) highly durable jack things start to look silly. It gets even sillier when you can field huge numbers of them.
I think a slight nerf to bunnies would be better than nerfing Ossrum. Something like a FA or less boxes/arm would be plenty.
|
|
gmonkey
Junior Strategist
I, for one, welcome our Infernal Overlords.
Posts: 313
|
Post by gmonkey on Nov 2, 2018 12:53:48 GMT
Isn't it widely recognized that Ossrum is one of the strongest casters in the game? Yes, that is not what's being contested. I read to the end of page 1 and failed to recognize that there were more pages. Like an idiot.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Nov 2, 2018 14:44:31 GMT
Just throwing it out there but maybe the following over haul would work to fix high shields Remove: - double time order - combined melee - (depending on balance) Practiced maneuvers
Add: - granted: repo 3 (UA) - Jack Marshal: Snipe (UA) - increase UA to pc: 6
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Nov 2, 2018 17:54:24 GMT
Just throwing it out there but maybe the following over haul would work to fix high shields Remove: - double time order - combined melee - (depending on balance) Practiced maneuvers Add: - granted: repo 3 (UA) - Jack Marshal: Snipe (UA) - increase UA to pc: 6 No where near enough, and 6 points for the UA would be utterly ridiculous
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Nov 2, 2018 18:18:34 GMT
Just throwing it out there but maybe the following over haul would work to fix high shields Remove: - double time order - combined melee - (depending on balance) Practiced maneuvers Add: - granted: repo 3 (UA) - Jack Marshal: Snipe (UA) - increase UA to pc: 6 No where near enough, and 6 points for the UA would be utterly ridiculous Well access to snipe means a range 16 bunny, or a range 16 avalancher, or a range 12 wrought hammer. Now this is snipe without need for focus from the caster on decent guns. Don’t forget with the new steel head solo you get access to power up so that’s a thing too. In irregulars you’d get flank, and a unit that would probably appreciate having a jack to unjam. Repo means shield guard can be used while staying in shield guard. You’d need at least a min unit and a couple well placed arm 19 bodies might be enough to protect said marshal and jack. Add in that they could also in theory be Brought back via the Seige Crawler. Sure personal damage output isn’t stellar, but they stand a chance of getting where they need and two shots (mini feat) with combined range means they can hit like you need for at least one turn. Point cost isn’t really an issue as you can get the UA for free in both Hammerstrike or irregulars, so not much an issue. Plus at a minimum unit you’re really only missing two bodies, which they strike me as a more defensive unit.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Nov 2, 2018 18:58:45 GMT
No where near enough, and 6 points for the UA would be utterly ridiculous Well access to snipe means a range 16 bunny, or a range 16 avalancher, or a range 12 wrought hammer. Now this is snipe without need for focus from the caster on decent guns. Don’t forget with the new steel head solo you get access to power up so that’s a thing too. In irregulars you’d get flank, and a unit that would probably appreciate having a jack to unjam. Repo means shield guard can be used while staying in shield guard. You’d need at least a min unit and a couple well placed arm 19 bodies might be enough to protect said marshal and jack. Add in that they could also in theory be Brought back via the Seige Crawler. Sure personal damage output isn’t stellar, but they stand a chance of getting where they need and two shots (mini feat) with combined range means they can hit like you need for at least one turn. Point cost isn’t really an issue as you can get the UA for free in both Hammerstrike or irregulars, so not much an issue. Plus at a minimum unit you’re really only missing two bodies, which they strike me as a more defensive unit. You are assuming the power up solo will be available in Irregulars, he is non-character so excluded unless explicitly added like the tinker. You don't want to use a UA for a free slot in Irregulars, as they need to be reserved for solos, so yes the points cost does matter significantly. We already have Snipe in faction, yeah it's nice but not what is needed for them. Also marshalling Warjacks in Hammer Strike is not great as they eat into your allocation that could count towards free points
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Nov 2, 2018 18:59:48 GMT
16 pts, rof 2, tactics shield guard, minifeat repo 5
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Nov 2, 2018 19:13:28 GMT
16 pts, rof 2, tactics shield guard, minifeat repo 5 Yeah either rof2 or dual shot with a snipe minifeat and granted repo 3
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Nov 6, 2018 14:01:15 GMT
I get that it would be a more balanced profile than before, but it doesn't really seem like it makes sense with their fluff. They are the high SHIELDS after all.
|
|
sorokin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 775
|
Post by sorokin on Nov 6, 2018 14:40:14 GMT
I get that it would be a more balanced profile than before, but it doesn't really seem like it makes sense with their fluff. They are the high SHIELDS after all. Then just have them throw their shields very high as a ranged attack. Who needs carbines anyway?
|
|
mhean
Demo Gamer
Posts: 16
|
Post by mhean on Nov 6, 2018 16:50:32 GMT
Ossrum with double battle engine can shut down entire factions, and the irregular version is really strong too. For instance, Cygnar can do nothing about it but hope for a casterkill that will never come if the Ossrum player play smart. More than that, in most competitive pairing you always see Ossrum. He is not like the most negative play experience like Ghost fleet or Haley2 in MK2/beginning of MK3, but he is easily one of the best caster in the game. So yeah, I think a little nerf (with the feat being an aura, or dropping of his spells for an other) would be nice to see from other factions perspective. Quite the hyperbole you have there. The Double Battle Engine list is by no means backbreaking or as heavy handed as you're claiming. Even Cygnar has options, and reliable ones (as Xintas has kindly pointed out). I think you should try tweaking your lists, casters you run, or even gameplan before crying for a nerf that isn't warranted. I wasn't crying for anything you know, I'm just pointing out a fact. At high level, with no mistakes or bad rolling, Osrum double battle engine (I repeat : the double battle engine list, not irregulars) Osrum has the most chance of winning by a lot. The reason I say this is not because the idea was dropped in the sky on me, it's because I've played the match up against a really good Osrum player (Wout from belgium who did a 6-0 at WTC) and I've seen multiple battle report featuring this particular list (here, it's in french sadly : www.youtube.com/channel/UCcsFIT0gigN2ZQUpzmVqC-A). And that's funny cause while I'm playing cygnar currently, I'm more of a troll player and troll has a lot of answer to Osrum (Magnus 2 is another story). I'm not crying for a nerf, but from my perspective, and from what I see when playing against mercs, yes nerfing Osrum would not be a bad idea. Like nerfing Nemo 3 wasn't a bad idea too.
|
|
Zeykk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 135
|
Post by Zeykk on Nov 6, 2018 19:49:01 GMT
At high level, with no mistakes or bad rolling, Osrum double battle engine (I repeat : the double battle engine list, not irregulars) Osrum has the most chance of winning by a lot. The reason I say this is not because the idea was dropped in the sky on me, it's because I've played the match up against a really good Osrum player (Wout from belgium who did a 6-0 at WTC) and I've seen multiple battle report featuring this particular list (here, it's in french sadly : www.youtube.com/channel/UCcsFIT0gigN2ZQUpzmVqC-A). I don't think that the claim that the double battle engines list is objectively better than the irregulars variant is fact. It's an opinion. And frankly, it seems that in relation to that current, easily obtainable data, suggests the opposite (I'm not claiming the data is complete). By your argument above, my numerous games, and perfect losing record with Ossrum against my meta's resident WTC player (using both the double hammer strike and irregulars variant about equally per number of games played) would result in the need for a buff for Ossrum. Sounds to me like it's the case of mismatched skill, poor list chicken circumstances, or a gap in the opponent's pairing. Just because you can't beat it with Cygnar (while also claiming to have less experience playing Cyganr, being a Troll player and all), doesn't mean a caster isn't in need of a nerf. You're projecting your own experiences or the results of one player to be indicative for the whole population.
|
|