|
Post by Gamingdevil on Mar 1, 2019 9:20:28 GMT
This would be fine if the Horror has to forfeit either movement or combar action in the turn it was summoned (is this known?). I think they said it will be able to fully activate.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Mar 1, 2019 13:19:20 GMT
Which makes sense if they are highly squishy. Like mad caps to the max, throw away missiles.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Mar 1, 2019 13:23:36 GMT
Which makes sense if they are highly squishy. Like mad caps to the max, throw away missiles. Highly? kinda doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by NoSuchMethod on Mar 1, 2019 14:40:55 GMT
Sacrificing a beast to win the game, or even gain a large advantage, is a no brainer and not much of a cost. But pretty much just to win the game. Ask Khador player how much they like the unstable rule, that just has a chance of exploding your Jack. Altough I am not super happy with the summoning then activating rule either. This would be fine if the Horror has to forfeit either movement or combar action in the turn it was summoned (is this known?). You see that same sort of discussion crop up a lot around Primal Animus and Hordes generally. People outside the faction(s) tend to see something like Primaling a Feral Warpwolf and running hot as bonkers and ludicrously broken ("IT GETS HOW MANY ATTACKS!?!"), while those actually running it will talk your ear off about the limitations of the mechanics and setup required.
Reading over these notesagain this morning, it actually sounds a lot like the way a traditional beast-heavy circle list plays (Kromac1, for instance). Most likely some crazy threat ranges and top-end output, a lot of tricksy tricks, relatively soft in attrition, and with a lot of strings attached that are only really apparent to the Infernals player.
|
|
|
Post by NoSuchMethod on Mar 1, 2019 14:58:45 GMT
Looks like a cool faction. I like the additonal resource management aspect, but summoning is a terrible idea. Good way to sell more models though. The ability to "summon anything" is an issue, I agree. As I'm sure you're aware from your profile pic, this sort of thing was a huge logistics problem for Malifaux summoners. Hopefully they will implement some kind of limit, perhaps a pre-selected 'sideboard' of summonable models you pick at list time, or not permitting summoning of a given Horror type past FA 2. Bringing 6 or 7 extra copies of each horror in your bag "just in case" is a bit ridiculous, to put it mildly.
To speak to summoning generally, I get the feeling from a lot of these posts that we're playing down the cost of summoning a bit. Essence is already looking to be the most "expensive" of the resource economies. Between the need to sac your own models and to pay the tithes, a point of essence is probably 25% - 50% higher value than a corresponding point of focus to begin with. And if you then use that to summon a heavy, say, you're talking an initial layout of 3 to 5 to summon, plus one for each turn you'd like it to stay in play, plus whatever you load on to the Horror so it can get some work done. End of the day, that "free" heavy could be costing you 7 or 8 essence over a couple turns easily. Add to that I suspect the casters are going to feel Essence-strapped anyway (each Horror is essentially an upkeep spell you need to maintain); this might not be nearly as ridiculous as it looks initially. The casters may not even broadly prefer summoning over other options for spending essence, like utilizing their spell lists or camping.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 1, 2019 15:41:21 GMT
So, I’m late to this thread. Can somebody sum up? How many “PP is circling the drain!!1!1!” posts are here so far? How many rules arguments have their been over generalized previews of rules? How many people have threatened to quit the game forever? Asking for a friend.... Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Mar 1, 2019 16:10:33 GMT
Consider this... Feat have insanly powerfull effects and there is no feat that puts a new beast into play. Goreshade1 puts 6 banes and Thagrosh1 returns a model you paid for to play.
No feat allows you to place a beast and activate it. I am very curious to see how they tackled this economy given that 3-5 essence means a new 6-18 pt model on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Mar 1, 2019 17:03:06 GMT
It really depends on how easy they can shovel Essence around whether this is something you actually have to play around or an easily trivialized Focus/Fury Hybrid without real drawbacks.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Mar 1, 2019 17:49:20 GMT
So, I’m late to this thread. Can somebody sum up? How many “PP is circling the drain!!1!1!” posts are here so far? How many rules arguments have their been over generalized previews of rules? How many people have threatened to quit the game forever? Asking for a friend.... Yeah. Not much arguing, but a loooot of... caution over assumed rules Consider this... Feat have insanly powerfull effects and there is no feat that puts a new beast into play. Goreshade1 puts 6 banes and Thagrosh1 returns a model you paid for to play. No feat allows you to place a beast and activate it. I am very curious to see how they tackled this economy given that 3-5 essence means a new 6-18 pt model on the table. Grymkin have the Shadow...
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 1, 2019 17:54:36 GMT
Consider this... Feat have insanly powerfull effects and there is no feat that puts a new beast into play. Goreshade1 puts 6 banes and Thagrosh1 returns a model you paid for to play. No feat allows you to place a beast and activate it. I am very curious to see how they tackled this economy given that 3-5 essence means a new 6-18 pt model on the table. I mean, spawning vessels and Thagrosh 2... I know those aren't feats, but I think the fact that they're just normal abilities (not once per game) that reliably put good lessers into play is indicative that we're jumping the gun here with the idea that this is inherently going to be a bad thing. It has the potential to be a problem. It also has the potential to be completely benign. We should treat those as equal possibilities. It's important to go into CID without pre-conceived notions that something NEEDS to change. It might be just fine.
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Mar 1, 2019 19:56:40 GMT
but I think the fact that they're just normal abilities (not once per game) that reliably put lessers into play Fixed that for you
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Mar 1, 2019 19:57:48 GMT
Consider this... Feat have insanly powerfull effects and there is no feat that puts a new beast into play. Goreshade1 puts 6 banes and Thagrosh1 returns a model you paid for to play. No feat allows you to place a beast and activate it. I am very curious to see how they tackled this economy given that 3-5 essence means a new 6-18 pt model on the table. I mean, spawning vessels and Thagrosh 2... I know those aren't feats, but I think the fact that they're just normal abilities (not once per game) that reliably put good lessers into play is indicative that we're jumping the gun here with the idea that this is inherently going to be a bad thing. It has the potential to be a problem. It also has the potential to be completely benign. We should treat those as equal possibilities. It's important to go into CID without pre-conceived notions that something NEEDS to change. It might be just fine.
I expressed interest, I never expressed concern.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 1, 2019 20:46:23 GMT
I mean, spawning vessels and Thagrosh 2... I know those aren't feats, but I think the fact that they're just normal abilities (not once per game) that reliably put good lessers into play is indicative that we're jumping the gun here with the idea that this is inherently going to be a bad thing. It has the potential to be a problem. It also has the potential to be completely benign. We should treat those as equal possibilities. It's important to go into CID without pre-conceived notions that something NEEDS to change. It might be just fine.
I expressed interest, I never expressed concern.
Gotcha, that's good. The thread doesn't really read that way to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 1, 2019 21:50:11 GMT
But pretty much just to win the game. Ask Khador player how much they like the unstable rule, that just has a chance of exploding your Jack. Altough I am not super happy with the summoning then activating rule either. This would be fine if the Horror has to forfeit either movement or combar action in the turn it was summoned (is this known?). You see that same sort of discussion crop up a lot around Primal Animus and Hordes generally. People outside the faction(s) tend to see something like Primaling a Feral Warpwolf and running hot as bonkers and ludicrously broken ("IT GETS HOW MANY ATTACKS!?!"), while those actually running it will talk your ear off about the limitations of the mechanics and setup required.
Reading over these notesagain this morning, it actually sounds a lot like the way a traditional beast-heavy circle list plays (Kromac1, for instance). Most likely some crazy threat ranges and top-end output, a lot of tricksy tricks, relatively soft in attrition, and with a lot of strings attached that are only really apparent to the Infernals player.
Maybe in your meta. All my Hordes players that can get Primal in their lists get primal in their lists. What it does is force your opponent, if good, to understand the mechanic and limit the piece trade so that after the exchange the non-primal player comes out on top. What makes, for example, Una2 so good with it is that she can help the Birds live to "fly" another day ;-)
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 1, 2019 22:01:39 GMT
I expressed interest, I never expressed concern.
Gotcha, that's good. The thread doesn't really read that way to be honest.
I won't speak for anyone else but my concern is that balancing such a mechanic is really quite daunting. Just two aspects.... If you don't provide threat extensions the horrors need to be tanky enough to have a decent chance at withstanding an alpha - but that creates problems of dropping a newly formed "tank" in the middle of their army and laughing at the board control it provides. If you provide threat extensions you can make them glass cannon - but then the summoning can be combined with threat extensions which can be combined with empower like abilities to send off missiles to kill casters.
And then you get to the point that CID'ing this will be a challenge - because what you want to do is see how oppressive the assassination threat is - but that isn't how 99% of testers play CIDs - instead being a full game played with regular rules, limited rolls backs, no dice flattening, etc.
What I want to know is if you build crazy assassination lists (most threat extenders, most empowers, most glass cannon horrors, most mobile masters how does it play? Is it a problem or with experiences does it melt/play even?
And so at this point it isn't salt - it is suggesting for those that will play test a build style that should be fully explored/tested to see how it works
Analogy:
I would love to know how many of the Garryth2 tests had both the House Shyeel Magister and the Dawnsled. POW 14 Armor piercing from 18 inches away isn't a thing until it is. If I really had time I would go back and look to see.
|
|