|
Post by demoncalibre on Nov 29, 2018 17:37:40 GMT
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your assertion. If it's that "switching to takedown is a nerf and the model is fine as-is," I don't necessarily disagree with you. I read it as "models with skornergistic ability combinations don't work, so this is not a valid approach to bringing the model's power level down." Which is it? My position is building models with Skornergistic Rules has a pretty consistent trend of making the models not very good, using it to tune them generally involves the model not being taken unless they either don't pay much for the rule, or they have another rule to offset the anti-synergy. If you give the UA take down instead of Grievious wounds, People would simply not take the UA, because why on earth would you want to pay for a rule, that isn't actually and upgrade to your unit, when you can buy path finder from Saxon, at a much more efficient rate. If you swap Grievous from the UA to take down, you simply make the UA unplayable, because no one is going to buy the choice to berserk, or take down. It also makes silence not a rule, though that isn't a huge deal, because Silence isn't really a great rule either.
|
|
|
Post by demoncalibre on Nov 29, 2018 17:39:35 GMT
Additionally, I would argue that Grievous affects less than 30% of the armies out there, and we're shitting our pants because of it. It affects warjacks, warbeasts, battle engines, models with tough. I'm not sure where you're getting 30% of armies from. It doesn't affect battle engines.
|
|
|
Post by ankiseth on Nov 29, 2018 17:50:11 GMT
It affects warjacks, warbeasts, battle engines, models with tough. I'm not sure where you're getting 30% of armies from. It doesn't affect battle engines. Prime 75, it's part of the Massive Rules. (Didn't know this off the top of my head, figured I'd supply the citation since I went to go check.)
|
|
|
Post by jdeckert on Nov 29, 2018 18:02:12 GMT
To play devil's advocate, people that suggested Take Down are doing so from the position of "grievous is bad", and that also is done in bad faith in my opinion. I agree. I would imagine it's a lot easier to create a cloud-wall that the Ternion can hide behind now? Since the clouds go away when the model dies, it's not a super reliable cloud wall though. It's not nothing, but greylords are still very vulnerable. My position is building models with Skornergistic Rules has a pretty consistent trend of making the models not very good, using it to tune them generally involves the model not being taken unless they either don't pay much for the rule, or they have another rule to offset the anti-synergy. How do you determine how many points they are paying for the rule versus other things, though? It's not like even PP has a secret algorithm where "Ability X costs Y points." Abilities that are skornergistic in some way are less valuable than abilities which aren't - as long as that's taken into consideration they're fine. Your earlier implication was that this "never" works. Again, maybe 3 points for the choice between pathfinder and take-down is too much. But it's strictly better than where he is now - so saying it "isn't actually and upgrade" isn't accurate.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Nov 29, 2018 18:04:51 GMT
Yeah the koldun lord redesign (that I've been wanting since day one of mk3 because he was trash before) makes playing him very interesting, while before I was taking one just to have one more solo to camp flags, I now feel like I'll try to fit two in most of my wolves list, having a koldun lord and an Adjunct in a list will really help our spell sligning casters and make them interesting choices in wolves of winter. The change to the ternions cloud helps them survive, the extra 2 range on their damage buff is also very meaningfull in my eyes, going from range 8 to range 10 is big in this game. When did the ternion have a range 8 damage buff? They only got Canker Frost two days ago! I'm still not convinced that Canker Frost will stick. Giving Khador access to multiple caster independent ARM debuffs seems very abusable. During the Dev Chat Stream Pagani outright said that he will try to work an ARM debuff into the Army in one form or another
|
|
|
Fall CID
Nov 29, 2018 18:17:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Korianneder on Nov 29, 2018 18:17:56 GMT
It affects warjacks, warbeasts, battle engines, models with tough. I'm not sure where you're getting 30% of armies from. It doesn't affect battle engines. Thank you thank you. I forgot it was part of massive and not the other colossal rule.
|
|
|
Post by auraco on Nov 29, 2018 20:14:33 GMT
Well the CID is closed, now we wait and hope for the best.
|
|
|
Post by demoncalibre on Nov 29, 2018 21:11:55 GMT
To play devil's advocate, people that suggested Take Down are doing so from the position of "grievous is bad", and that also is done in bad faith in my opinion. I agree. I would imagine it's a lot easier to create a cloud-wall that the Ternion can hide behind now? Since the clouds go away when the model dies, it's not a super reliable cloud wall though. It's not nothing, but greylords are still very vulnerable. My position is building models with Skornergistic Rules has a pretty consistent trend of making the models not very good, using it to tune them generally involves the model not being taken unless they either don't pay much for the rule, or they have another rule to offset the anti-synergy. How do you determine how many points they are paying for the rule versus other things, though? It's not like even PP has a secret algorithm where "Ability X costs Y points." Abilities that are skornergistic in some way are less valuable than abilities which aren't - as long as that's taken into consideration they're fine. Your earlier implication was that this "never" works. Again, maybe 3 points for the choice between pathfinder and take-down is too much. But it's strictly better than where he is now - so saying it "isn't actually and upgrade" isn't accurate. This is why I don't like having conversations on the internet. It always devolves into being pedantic. You are leaning on the fact that in one of my posts I said "never" while quoting a post that allows for that kind of design to occasionally work. The point I was making and I thought I conveyed in my message, is giving him a Skornergistic Rule that isn't that useful, isn't actually and upgrade, because it won't clear the bar for him to be playable. Which means while the model may have "improved" it didn't improve in a meaningful way. It's like putting poop in a pretty box, it's improved, but no one really cares. Edit2: I changed my post again, after reading your response a second time, I realized I misunderstood it. While the Escort does more then just Saxon(by providing Take Down in addition to not quite pathfinder), Take down is such a weak rule, because of it's Skornegy that it isn't more efficient then just taking Saxon, who can provide more of the pathfinder rule to more of your models.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Nov 29, 2018 23:25:38 GMT
I agree. Since the clouds go away when the model dies, it's not a super reliable cloud wall though. It's not nothing, but greylords are still very vulnerable. How do you determine how many points they are paying for the rule versus other things, though? It's not like even PP has a secret algorithm where "Ability X costs Y points." Abilities that are skornergistic in some way are less valuable than abilities which aren't - as long as that's taken into consideration they're fine. Your earlier implication was that this "never" works. Again, maybe 3 points for the choice between pathfinder and take-down is too much. But it's strictly better than where he is now - so saying it "isn't actually and upgrade" isn't accurate. This is why I don't like having conversations on the internet. It always devolves into being pedantic. You are leaning on the fact that in one of my posts I said "never" while quoting a post that allows for that kind of design to occasionally work. The point I was making and I thought I conveyed in my message, is giving him a Skornergistic Rule that isn't that useful, isn't actually and upgrade, because it won't clear the bar for him to be playable. Which means while the model may have "improved" it didn't improve in a meaningful way. It's like putting poop in a pretty box, it's improved, but no one really cares. Edit2: I changed my post again, after reading your response a second time, I realized I misunderstood it. While the Escort does more then just Saxon(by providing Take Down in addition to not quite pathfinder), Take down is such a weak rule, because of it's Skornegy that it isn't more efficient then just taking Saxon, who can provide more of the pathfinder rule to more of your models. Just so you are aware, the Devs have stated on multiple occasions that they hate the term “Skornergy” and don’t believe it exists. They call it “choices” and I’m inclined to agree.
|
|
|
Post by jdeckert on Nov 29, 2018 23:44:46 GMT
This is why I don't like having conversations on the internet. It always devolves into being pedantic. You are leaning on the fact that in one of my posts I said "never" while quoting a post that allows for that kind of design to occasionally work. The point I was making and I thought I conveyed in my message, is giving him a Skornergistic Rule that isn't that useful, isn't actually and upgrade, because it won't clear the bar for him to be playable. Which means while the model may have "improved" it didn't improve in a meaningful way. It's like putting poop in a pretty box, it's improved, but no one really cares. Really? They always turn into pedantry? I kid But I wasn't taking your "never" too literally - I understand you were being hyperbolic and don't hold that against you. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't making an argument that the escort is better balanced with take down than GW. I was responding to arguments that skornergistic instead of non-skornergistic abilities are a non-starter as a way to balance a model that is currently too strong because they will necessarily make it too weak. I thought that's the point you and a couple of others were trying to make, hence the trencher example. If you're really only making an argument about this specific case, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and tried to state as much. But yeah, we may have been talking past each other a little.
|
|
|
Fall CID
Nov 29, 2018 23:54:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Armchair Warrior on Nov 29, 2018 23:54:16 GMT
When did the ternion have a range 8 damage buff? They only got Canker Frost two days ago! I'm still not convinced that Canker Frost will stick. Giving Khador access to multiple caster independent ARM debuffs seems very abusable. During the Dev Chat Stream Pagani outright said that he will try to work an ARM debuff into the Army in one form or another Seriously? Don’t joke.
|
|
|
Post by jdeckert on Nov 29, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
Just so you are aware, the Devs have stated on multiple occasions that they hate the term “Skornergy” and don’t believe it exists. They call it “choices” and I’m inclined to agree. If they hadn't closed their faction forums, we'd be having the conversation over there and they could auto-correct "skornergy" to "options" the way they got rid of CoC. But they did so we can call it whatever we want
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Nov 30, 2018 0:02:23 GMT
Just so you are aware, the Devs have stated on multiple occasions that they hate the term “Skornergy” and don’t believe it exists. They call it “choices” and I’m inclined to agree. If they hadn't closed their faction forums, we'd be having the conversation over there and they could auto-correct "skornergy" to "options" the way they got rid of CoC. But they did so we can call it whatever we want That’s fair. I’ve been playing warmachine with the Devs on game night for years and they genuinely dislike that so Im used to talking about the actual flaws of a models interraction instead of labeling it Skornergy and assuming my point is clear. For example, I get that in this instance one rule would override another rule, but think of it like ammo types. One ammo type is berserk, the other is ignoring tough and RFPing. I don’t see how that’s unfair to the Doom Reavers or why they have to have all the ammo types all the time or theyre useless. I also wouldn’t label it Skornergy. edit: im not arguing for take down or against grievous wounds, just that the argument against take down being considered seems flawed.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Nov 30, 2018 0:02:47 GMT
When did the ternion have a range 8 damage buff? They only got Canker Frost two days ago! I'm still not convinced that Canker Frost will stick. Giving Khador access to multiple caster independent ARM debuffs seems very abusable. During the Dev Chat Stream Pagani outright said that he will try to work an ARM debuff into the Army in one form or another Wow! Well okay then, I can't really argue with that! I'm still surprised though; how many other non-caster ARM debuffs are there? Dark Shroud is melee, Rust is constructs only, Withering Humour is living... Harm and Curse of Shadows are on characters... Have I missed any? How has Khador ended up with nearly the most ubiquitous and least restrictive ARM debuff? (Although I suppose it is only single target)
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Nov 30, 2018 0:04:10 GMT
During the Dev Chat Stream Pagani outright said that he will try to work an ARM debuff into the Army in one form or another Seriously? Don’t joke. Yup, shit you not. www.facebook.com/OfficialPrivateerPress/videos/290823321638972/Just a bit after they start discussing Week 3 changes and Canker Frost, Pagani said he likes the debuff and wants to see it available to the army
|
|