|
|
Post by netdragon on Dec 27, 2018 9:49:34 GMT
I think theme forces as a concept are a mistake.
Game design is going towards making things easier, not more complicated.
My dream system would be point-free, only selecting models like in Guild Ball with the necessary adaptations. If this is possible, making army building a part of the actual game/match would also help dealing with jank lists IMHO.
If dealing with too many units from the "big" factions is such a problem, then create sub factions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 27, 2018 10:18:17 GMT
I think theme forces as a concept are a mistake. [ Isn't this exactely what the OP didn't want to crop up in this thread? No need to rehash it in here. |
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 27, 2018 12:15:21 GMT
I think rather than making freebies effectively a scaling points increase, most themes could do with adding a secondary freebie point source.
e.g. Jaws of the Wolf has it in jacks, but add "Khador units" as well, so you can make more varied forces without giving up the points efficiency of "spamming".
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243 
|
Post by cain on Dec 27, 2018 12:30:37 GMT
Themes should just be; take only this models and get a bonus to your army ( +1 to start or +2 to deployment etc). No freebies.
|
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Dec 27, 2018 12:48:39 GMT
Again, it's not that these things aren't pretty easy to figure out, it's a matter of acknowledging that, of making the exceptions clearer, and frankly, reviewing the necessity of each of those exceptions. Aren't the exceptions already really quite clear? I genuinely don't understand what isn't clear at this point and would appreciate explanation to be able to contribute more meaningfully.
As for reviewing different approaches (aka exceptions) in different themes, that might be desirable, but PP do already have a fairly standardised approach to themes, such that I suspect that they have an internal "have a rule to make people think carefully about breaking it" approach before releasing themes to CID. What is the benefit of making it explicit to the outside world, other than to have people complaining that they didn't get an exception?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 14:55:24 GMT
I think theme forces as a concept are a mistake. Game design is going towards making things easier, not more complicated. My dream system would be point-free, only selecting models like in Guild Ball with the necessary adaptations. If this is possible, making army building a part of the actual game/match would also help dealing with jank lists IMHO. If dealing with too many units from the "big" factions is such a problem, then create sub factions. That's what themes are-- sub-factions into which we break down the huge factions so they are manageable not only for game balance but the design of new releases, so there can even be any room for new models in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2018 16:25:35 GMT
I think theme forces as a concept are a mistake. Agreed and disagreed. I'll get in to why in the rest of my response. Game design is going towards making things easier, not more complicated. Not necessarily. Some people like more intricate rule systems. That invariably comes with complicated systems. I love Battletech, but it is extraordinarily complicated when compared to WMH that a 8 model (4v4 match runs about as long as a 50-75 point match. My dream system would be point-free, only selecting models like in Guild Ball with the necessary adaptations. If this is possible, making army building a part of the actual game/match would also help dealing with jank lists IMHO. And those can be just as complicated as the Theme system. The biggest problem with the current Theme system is that they doubled down on one of the biggest complaints of 40K Choice Detachment construction, building that certain way provided some factions with free models. It is a great way to "encourage" (i.e. force) playing the restrictive sub-factions called Themes, but it leaves a sour taste in the mouth and can leave model lines in the dust for lack of effective support.
From there, a few of the Themes are a little... off in how they provide benefits. When a Theme provides bonus models for units, but provide benefits to the Warjacks/Warbeasts, it is a bit disassociative. Unfortunately, the current CID process is not well geared to balancing them out in a rapid manner.
If dealing with too many units from the "big" factions is such a problem, then create sub factions. As someone said, one of the purposes of the Theme Forces were to break down the factions in to more manageable bites. The problem being that if you aren't aware of Themes or slow build (like me) you can be caught unawares and left with a Theme-wise dysfunctional collection. For example, I have for my Skorne army, 1 squad of Cataphract Cetrati, 1 squad of Venator Reivers, and no Beast Handlers. That literally works with zero Themes. |
|
d3z
Junior Strategist
Posts: 129
|
Post by d3z on Dec 27, 2018 23:39:14 GMT
From there, a few of the Themes are a little... off in how they provide benefits. When a Theme provides bonus models for units, but provide benefits to the Warjacks/Warbeasts, it is a bit disassociative. Unfortunately, the current CID process is not well geared to balancing them out in a rapid manner.
I disagree. One of my top criteria for a good theme list is one when I can build 2 (or even 3) lists within a theme that look nothing alike, and themes that offer free points on units + a BG gameplay benefit almost always do this effectively. It let's you change the BG/units ratio freely (as the OP noted is a positive thing).
Look at faithful masses. I can do (1) jack heavy with Amon (monks to trigger hand of vengeance works just fine), (2) gun heavy (idrians, zealots, deliverers) with Reznik 2 or F3ora, (3) weaponmaster heavy e.g. with Harby. The fact that some solos and even merc units count towards free cards just opens things up a lot, and I won't get bored of playing lists in that theme for a long time. Exemplar interdiction also let's you have a large variety of viable ratios between jacks and units.
Don't get me wrong, some themes with gameplay benefits for the models that also count towards free cards can also give you this variety. But sometimes stacking benefits on the one thing yields poor build variety.
As far as I am concerned, this isn't just 'one of the purposes', it is THE purpose. It is impossible for a newer player to toe in to such bloated factions without themes, so they are necessary.
That said, I am skeptical of the balance argument. I'd like those who have more complete collections to have the extra option to play out of theme, but the current system is too punishing for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2018 2:20:56 GMT
From there, a few of the Themes are a little... off in how they provide benefits. When a Theme provides bonus models for units, but provide benefits to the Warjacks/Warbeasts, it is a bit disassociative. Unfortunately, the current CID process is not well geared to balancing them out in a rapid manner.
I disagree. One of my top criteria for a good theme list is one when I can build 2 (or even 3) lists within a theme that look nothing alike, and themes that offer free points on units + a BG gameplay benefit almost always do this effectively. It let's you change the BG/units ratio freely (as the OP noted is a positive thing).
Look at faithful masses. I can do (1) jack heavy with Amon (monks to trigger hand of vengeance works just fine), (2) gun heavy (idrians, zealots, deliverers) with Reznik 2 or F3ora, (3) weaponmaster heavy e.g. with Harby. The fact that some solos and even merc units count towards free cards just opens things up a lot, and I won't get bored of playing lists in that theme for a long time. Exemplar interdiction also let's you have a large variety of viable ratios between jacks and units.
Don't get me wrong, some themes with gameplay benefits for the models that also count towards free cards can also give you this variety. But sometimes stacking benefits on the one thing yields poor build variety.
As far as I am concerned, this isn't just 'one of the purposes', it is THE purpose. It is impossible for a newer player to toe in to such bloated factions without themes, so they are necessary.
That said, I am skeptical of the balance argument. I'd like those who have more complete collections to have the extra option to play out of theme, but the current system is too punishing for that.
The only Theme I know of that does a combined benefits half-way well is Irregulars. You gain free models for Jacks or Units, and Marshalled Jack's gain a benefit. It's not perfect, but you aren't gimping yourself by going half hog in to the concept like going Jack heavy into Faithful Masses. And don't forget, balancing is part of managing a group of models. |
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Dec 28, 2018 5:33:06 GMT
The only Theme I know of that does a combined benefits half-way well is Irregulars. You gain free models for Jacks or Units, and Marshalled Jack's gain a benefit. It's not perfect, but you aren't gimping yourself by going half hog in to the concept like going Jack heavy into Faithful Masses. Winter Guard Kommand does combined benefits really well too. Free Winter Guard units/models, and a benefit to jacks that they really like (Advanced Move) which is tied to the number of WG units you take. Plenty of variety in the potential builds too, from simple rocket spam, to Irusk2 waves of troopers, through to a 50/50ish mix of jacks and WG (Vlad1 and Butcher3 both like this), with the availability of the Gun Carriage to mix it up even more.
It's still my favourite Khador theme, and the Greylord Adjunct should mean I don't feel that I have to include Aiyana & Holt in it any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2018 18:09:28 GMT
The only Theme I know of that does a combined benefits half-way well is Irregulars. You gain free models for Jacks or Units, and Marshalled Jack's gain a benefit. It's not perfect, but you aren't gimping yourself by going half hog in to the concept like going Jack heavy into Faithful Masses. Winter Guard Kommand does combined benefits really well too. Free Winter Guard units/models, and a benefit to jacks that they really like (Advanced Move) which is tied to the number of WG units you take. Plenty of variety in the potential builds too, from simple rocket spam, to Irusk2 waves of troopers, through to a 50/50ish mix of jacks and WG (Vlad1 and Butcher3 both like this), with the availability of the Gun Carriage to mix it up even more.
It's still my favourite Khador theme, and the Greylord Adjunct should mean I don't feel that I have to include Aiyana & Holt in it any more.
Not really. It's really counter to what I was saying. The army size benefits from the number of units you take while the extra rules only benefit the Battlegroup itself. So you either screw your point tally be going high on the Warjacks or you don't take much advantage of the Advanced Move.
With Irregulars, army size is improved by either units or Warjacks. It benefits Marshalled Jacks. Marshalling is provided by units and solos, so bringing Jacks for some units or free solos to Marshal doesn't shoot you in the foot (Marshalling just does that all on its own, unfortunately, which is why it is only a half-good version).
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 28, 2018 18:20:56 GMT
Winter Guard Kommand does combined benefits really well too. Free Winter Guard units/models, and a benefit to jacks that they really like (Advanced Move) which is tied to the number of WG units you take. Plenty of variety in the potential builds too, from simple rocket spam, to Irusk2 waves of troopers, through to a 50/50ish mix of jacks and WG (Vlad1 and Butcher3 both like this), with the availability of the Gun Carriage to mix it up even more.
It's still my favourite Khador theme, and the Greylord Adjunct should mean I don't feel that I have to include Aiyana & Holt in it any more.
Not really. It's really counter to what I was saying. The army size benefits from the number of units you take while the extra rules only benefit the Battlegroup itself. So you either screw your point tally be going high on the Warjacks or you don't take much advantage of the Advanced Move. With Irregulars, army size is improved by either units or Warjacks. It benefits Marshalled Jacks. Marshalling is provided by units and solos, so bringing Jacks for some units or free solos to Marshal doesn't shoot you in the foot (Marshalling just does that all on its own, unfortunately, which is why it is only a half-good version).
This could also be Vlad 1, Butcher 1, and probably a few others with minimal tweaking. It's not exactly S-Tier, but it's a quite solid first list depending on the meta, or maybe if you need your second list to answer non-spray guns. conflictchamber.com/#c3201b_-0fhzkRkRkRkRkWkWnj8t7Z7Z7-7-7X7W7X7WKhador Army - 75 / 75 points [Theme] Winter Guard Kommand !!! This army contains a CID entry. [Old Witch 2] Zevanna Agha, the Fate Keeper [+27] - Berserker [8] - Berserker [8] - Berserker [8] - Berserker [8] - Juggernaut [13] - Juggernaut [13] - Greylord Adjunct [4] Kovnik Jozef Grigorovich [4] Winter Guard Field Gun Crew [4] Winter Guard Field Gun Crew [4] Winter Guard Mortar Crew [0(5)] Winter Guard Mortar Crew [0(5)] Winter Guard Rifle Corps (min) [8] - Winter Guard Rocketeer (3) [6] Winter Guard Rifle Corps (min) [8] - Winter Guard Rocketeer (3) [6] |
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Dec 29, 2018 5:59:41 GMT
...[waxing lyrical about WGK]... Not really. It's really counter to what I was saying. The army size benefits from the number of units you take while the extra rules only benefit the Battlegroup itself. So you either screw your point tally be going high on the Warjacks or you don't take much advantage of the Advanced Move.
With Irregulars, army size is improved by either units or Warjacks. It benefits Marshalled Jacks. Marshalling is provided by units and solos, so bringing Jacks for some units or free solos to Marshal doesn't shoot you in the foot (Marshalling just does that all on its own, unfortunately, which is why it is only a half-good version).
But the real benefit in Irregulars isn't the bonus to marshalling, it's the Advanced Move for heavies from including units, which is the same as WGK.
WGK works really well as a combined arms list. WG options are cheap enough that you can get lots of what you want without messing up points or losing Advanced Move. I've been using a Vlad1 combined arms list since it came out with tweaks along the way. The BG has been tweaked and A&H have come in and out. Once the Greylord Adjunct comes out, I'm thinking:
Vlad1
-Marauder
-Marauder
-Berserker
-Berserker
-Berserker
-Greylord Adjunct
WGI(Max) + UA +2 rockets
WG Rifles (min) +3 rockets
WG Mortar (free)
WG Field Gun (free)
Kovnik Joe
Gun Carriage
4 Advance Move jacks is plenty, and I've never thought I really needed 3 free WG options.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 24, 2019 16:46:15 GMT
Yes, I'm reviving this thread, but for a good reason. I see people say fairly often that they would be fine with themes or at least less opposed to them if list building were less cumbersome. I really do think that my idea helps that a lot.
To reiterate and update:
1) Get rid of the hair-splitting game sizes that no one ever uses. Games would instead scale in 25-point increments up to 75, even in the Journeyman League. 100 and 150 use the Unbound rules with two and three casters, respectively.
2) No more 0-point starters or games. They're too hard to balance for not enough benefit and they just do not give an accurate impression of what the game is really like. A quick rundown on how a battlegroup works should be sufficient for teaching the game. Starters should be complete 25-point armies at a price point that is competitive with GW's Start Collecting Boxes.
3) If you're in-theme, you get one freebie per 25 points in the size of the game, plus one. The theme limits what models you are allowed to use and (if it is designed well) its benefits encourage the use of its own models. That's enough. It should not care about 60 points of MOW as opposed to 59 or even 39, or even the use of Mercs and Minions.
A 48-point army would still get three freebies because you're playing a 50-point game. The extra freebie is there to help 50-point armies get enough support...
4) Which is mainly what freebies should be. I can see including unit attachments and weapon crews, but IMO freebies should usually be more focused on helping you get things like Choir, Mechanics, and Whelps than Alexia 2 or a Hellmouth. I'd put a blanket limit on them to 5 points or less each, and let each theme go from there to define what is available. Some things like the Dhunian Knot should be 5 points and freebie options anyway.
Dark Menagerie would still have 4 free Gremlin Swarms at 75 points, and that's plenty. Black Industries has solos that could serve just fine (maybe with some tweaks) and the Deathripper would probably be fine at 5 points.
I really do think this is less restrictive and fairer to everyone and would probably make themes easier to balance not harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Feb 25, 2019 22:34:16 GMT
If you are not tying free slots to having certain models, then I don't see the point of having free slots tbh. If everyone is special, no one is. I can, sort of.
If you're allowed some free models out of a limited selection, that buffer limits overpricing errors. It's sort of like FA:1 / FA:C in that regard.
Right now, for example, Greylords Ternion are 7 points but potentially free in Wolves of Winter. It's hard to say they're really worth 7 points as a unit, but because you can get them free, they're going on the table anyway.
It's inferior to just pricing the models correctly in the first place, though. You may as well just mandate composition limits ("Must have at least X points of solos or small support units and Y points of warjacks / warbeasts").
|
|
