|
Post by NoSuchMethod on Mar 29, 2019 15:47:40 GMT
paradox - restricting access to cultists by cost and FA was a inelegant, but at least it was tenuously connected with game size. But by all means, enlighten me. How would you have handled the scaling issue? Because I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, any version of the Week 1.3 rules that's balanced at 75 point steamroller causes the game to straight-up implode at basically any other points level or format. The week 3 change to needing to sacrifice a solo was the first time that the infernals faction was operating within the same mathematical constraints as every other faction in the game.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Mar 29, 2019 15:52:05 GMT
paradox - restricting access to cultists by cost and FA was a inelegant, but at least it was tenuously connected with game size. But by all means, enlighten me. How would you have handled the scaling issue? Because I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, any version of the Week 1.3 rules that's balanced at 75 point steamroller causes the game to straight-up implode at basically any other points level or format. The week 3 change to needing to sacrifice a solo was the first time that the infernals faction was operating within the same mathematical constraints as every other faction in the game. Rather than me hypothetically walk through inumerable possible fine balances, why not explain how Week 1.3 caused any game to explode. This was clearly not demonstrated in any published bat reps from that week. Rather, the opposite. The main flaw was player error, blundering into known threat ranges, or attempting to alpha Infernals at their peak strength. Players flat out failed to account for or adapt to summoning. No one tried non-meta-popular lists to deal with essence economy either. It was a sheer, concerted effort to bend Infernals to the meta, rather than allowing a new faction and mechanic to shake it up.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 29, 2019 16:25:12 GMT
paradox - restricting access to cultists by cost and FA was a inelegant, but at least it was tenuously connected with game size. But by all means, enlighten me. How would you have handled the scaling issue? Because I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, any version of the Week 1.3 rules that's balanced at 75 point steamroller causes the game to straight-up implode at basically any other points level or format. The week 3 change to needing to sacrifice a solo was the first time that the infernals faction was operating within the same mathematical constraints as every other faction in the game. Rather than me hypothetically walk through inumerable possible fine balances, why not explain how Week 1.3 caused any game to explode. This was clearly not demonstrated in any published bat reps from that week. Rather, the opposite. The main flaw was player error, blundering into known threat ranges, or attempting to alpha Infernals at their peak strength. Players flat out failed to account for or adapt to summoning. No one tried non-meta-popular lists to deal with essence economy either. It was a sheer, concerted effort to bend Infernals to the meta, rather than allowing a new faction and mechanic to shake it up. Those rules don't exist anymore. No sense dwelling on it.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Mar 29, 2019 16:47:32 GMT
Rather than me hypothetically walk through inumerable possible fine balances, why not explain how Week 1.3 caused any game to explode. This was clearly not demonstrated in any published bat reps from that week. Rather, the opposite. The main flaw was player error, blundering into known threat ranges, or attempting to alpha Infernals at their peak strength. Players flat out failed to account for or adapt to summoning. No one tried non-meta-popular lists to deal with essence economy either. It was a sheer, concerted effort to bend Infernals to the meta, rather than allowing a new faction and mechanic to shake it up. Those rules don't exist anymore. No sense dwelling on it. Im just bitter.
|
|
thelat
Junior Strategist
Posts: 480
|
Post by thelat on Mar 29, 2019 18:19:57 GMT
Legion player here. I don't really feel like Infernals have any connection to Legion in any of the editions. The main thing about Legion was skirting the rules, which we do a lot less of now. The horrors aren't particularly glass or cannon. They feel more like Cryx to me, but focused on warjacks. The main theme of Infernals seems to be that Infernals are hungry. To illuminate the claim a bit, a few people in the CID were comparing them to Legion on the basis of the Infernal heavies being on the carnivean chassis. You'd keep seeing variations of conversations like:
A: "the heavies are so squishy, this is TERRIBLE" B: "well, they're basically as durable as a carnivean" A: "a carnivean is not exactly durable..." B: "they also have long threat range and hit real hard, LIKE A CARNIVEAN" B: "I just realized infernals are basically legion 2.0"
I'm guessing that's what the other guy was referring to
You're not wrong, but losing a Carnivean hurts a lot. Losing a Tormentor is more like losing a solo.
|
|
|
Post by regabond on Mar 29, 2019 21:33:10 GMT
I would have much preferred to see horrors keep the 1.3 summoning and have Infernals be a seriously unique faction. Now they feel like a slightly different flavor of a standard faction.
Balancing the 1.3 summoning would have required alterations to damage buffs from Masters and more emphasis on cultists being the resource for the faction. Have them be able to sacrifice themselves in the control phase to power up a horror, Masters, and summoning. Horrors also would have likely required their POW, ARM, and Points drop by one or two. PP made it apparent that that level of balancing was not in the cards.
If any faction was going to get me back into this game it was going to be a unique faction with awesome models like the Infernals. Not sure if the current version of them is what I want to play though.
|
|
|
Post by boardroomhero on Mar 30, 2019 19:50:37 GMT
All that needed to be done was remove empower from cultists. Then summoning would be limited by the demands of having to fuel the horrors and pay tithe. It would have been simple and elegant.
The point of essence is that it is limited. And then they added a unit that removed all its limitations and wondered why the faction seemed strong. Bizzare beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by Cuckoo on Mar 30, 2019 20:18:09 GMT
I wouldn’t worry about it being strong presently. - it’s nowhere near as polished or powerful as Grymkin.
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Mar 31, 2019 0:35:13 GMT
I wouldn’t worry about it being strong presently. - it’s nowhere near as polished or powerful as Grymkin. I look at grymkin as a fun limited faction with some unique abilities and strong faction identity. It feels like infernals are missing this: abilities were everywhere, unique mechanics a mess, and they didn’t really feel like a coherent faction. All these complaints go up to 11 if heart of darkness is rereleased as it was... To me grymkin should be the benchmark of a limited release faction.
|
|