|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 5, 2019 14:15:58 GMT
Because boring doesn't get played as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Mar 6, 2019 3:30:57 GMT
I don't like the design philosophy as explained above, why start someplace that's deemed unreasonable? It's a waste of time, and there'll allways be people who think it's fine (and powercreep doesn't exist). It's just not helpfull (even though it can be fun). Not only do you get additional feedback because people actually play the model (as Charistoph mentioned), but it's also easier to work your way down until you reach an acceptable level rather than try to work your way up. To take a recent example, the Lord of the Feast started from a low base and gradually had more and more rules tacked onto it. Of course, both methodologies have had their fail points, but the "start high and trim" method is the best way of avoiding the very "ramp the power up to 11 in the final week" scenario. You both have more time to work out where the problem is, and a greater quantity of feedback to prove there is a problem. This is particularly relevant with legacy models, since players have preconceived notions of their effectiveness and will dismiss a small buff as not being "enough" to turn a widely panned model into a performer. This ignores the fact that Warmachine is a pretty tightly tuned game with a lot of moving parts, and that even a small change can be enough to move a model from unplayable into the "niche but useful in the right list" bracket that honestly the majority of models should hope to sit in. But people are people, and it can take a sharp shock to lead to them reconsidering the effectiveness of a model the groupthink or personal experience has written off. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Mar 6, 2019 6:34:59 GMT
So you change the method because people are idiots? I guess that's fair  Edit: Starting too low isn't good either I guess, if it doesn't leave you time to properly test what is actually reasonable. And that's where cid sometimes misses a turn because they leave us no time to test the endresult of the trimming. And apparently they sometimes drop the ball on doing that themselves (or don't mind, it's fairly obvious powercreep is part of their business strategy). I kinda dread how the grave ghoul will come out, which wasn't properly tested at all (what they seemed to care about was whether two ranges on one model would confuse people) but did go through changes at the 11th hour. |
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 6, 2019 14:42:56 GMT
Well, WarmaHordes has always had a history of balance through imbalance (i.e., if everything is OP, nothing is), so it's not really changing the method, we're just seeing more of the hot dog being manufactured. Also, we don't know the process that went behind the scenes before it shows up in CID. They may already have a nerfed version in-house they are working on, but want people to test out other aspects or processes for future models (remember the immunity test?). That is usually why they put questions regarding the model in the CID announcement.
|
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Mar 6, 2019 21:36:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Mar 6, 2019 21:42:19 GMT
Hearts of Darkness is poorly thought out, even for PP. I hope they waved to the shark as they jumped over it.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243 
|
Post by cain on Mar 6, 2019 22:34:38 GMT
Hearts of Darkness is poorly thought out, even for PP. I hope they waved to the shark as they jumped over it. Totally agree. Allowing infernals broad access to all those warcasters and units from other factions seems like a horribel idea and a nightmare to balance. Im almost unshure if they are trolling us or too eager to sell models. |
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Mar 6, 2019 22:38:36 GMT
Hearts of Darkness is poorly thought out, even for PP. I hope they waved to the shark as they jumped over it. The idea is great but is surprising they just dump it 'as is' as the start of CiD. Goes to show how much internal playtesting they do prior to a CiD  |
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Mar 6, 2019 22:44:22 GMT
Allowing them acces to some specific units and models would be OK, like the merc theme having access to some cygnar/menoth units.
But having access to all the warcasters in several faction. This cant be playtested internal at all. Throwing that idea into CID doesnt seem good.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Mar 6, 2019 23:16:25 GMT
Come on guys, I'm developing a very strong resistance to the Doom and Gloom this forum strives in. But ignoring the fact that the Devs actually said on stream not to get excited about the Hearts of Darkness because there was a non zero chance of not even being released, just to scream at PP on reflex, is kinda of a new plateau even for this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Mar 6, 2019 23:30:55 GMT
But ignoring the fact that the Devs actually said on stream not to get excited about the Hearts of Darkness because there was a non zero chance of not even being released, What does this even mean in the context of CiD where people have to construct lists and spend time to test them? So now PP just literally tosses things at random for people to test that may not get released? |
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Mar 6, 2019 23:35:47 GMT
But ignoring the fact that the Devs actually said on stream not to get excited about the Hearts of Darkness because there was a non zero chance of not even being released, What does this even mean in the context of CiD where people have to construct lists and spend time to test them? So now PP just literally tosses things at random for people to test that may not get released? Basically everything they test “may not see release” because the rules can change so greatly u can have entire builds of a model trashed and rethought. Saying “I tried it and its awful” is valuable play data. |
|
Miafan
Junior Strategist
Eater of Brains
Posts: 130
|
Post by Miafan on Mar 6, 2019 23:36:10 GMT
Hearts of Darkness is poorly thought out, even for PP. I hope they waved to the shark as they jumped over it. If this abomination sees the light, I am never having anything to do with PP, ever. It's beyond GW's level of retarded. |
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 6, 2019 23:49:38 GMT
Can anyone provide a picture for those who have limited research time?
Edit: I found it in the stream (last third of part 2), and it still has me do a little whiskey tango. Questions that come are: Why non-partisans? Why not Mercs? What about Mercs make them unattractive to the Infernal cause? I mean, I can understand not allowing Blaize, but why is Caine3 immune, but Caine2, HaleyX or ButcherX is not?
As a side note, no notation as to which Mercs would work for Infernals that I saw in a quick scan.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Mar 6, 2019 23:56:42 GMT
Every time there's a complaint about themes, there's some self-appointed champion defending how they're really a great thing because they deal with faction bloat and restrict interactions and make testing easier and blah blah blah. And now this theme comes along and basically shits directly into their mouths. I love it.
Posting an image for a few hundred bytes of text is an abomination. Also, get off my lawn.
Hearts of Darkness
Army Composition
When making an army using this theme force, select a Faction: Crucible Guard, Cygnar, or Khador. An army made using this theme force can include only the following models:
• Non-Partisan warcasters of the selected Faction
• Non-character warjacks of the selected Faction
• Lesser and light horrors that are part of Great Princess Regna Gravnoy’s battlegroup.
• Up to two non-Partisan units of the selected Faction
• Up to three non-Partisan solos of the selected Faction
• Infernal units
• Infernal solos
• Infernal structures
Special Rules
• This army can include lesser and light horrors that are part of Great Princess Regna Gravnoy’s battlegroup.
• This army can also include one Mercenary solo and one Mercenary unit that will work for the Infernals. These models/units can be included even if they have the Partisan [Infernals] special rule. Mercenary units in this army can include attachments.
• For every full 20 points of horrors, units, solos, and structures in this army, you can add one command attachment or small- or medium-based solo to the army free of cost. Free command attachments and solos do not count toward the total point value of units and solos in the army when calculating this bonus.
• All models in this army are considered to be Infernal models.
• Friendly models/units can begin the game affected by the upkeep spells of warcasters in this army. These spells and their targets must be declared before either player deploys their models. Warcasters in this army do not have to pay focus to upkeep their spells during your first turn of the game.
|
|
