|
Post by coolguyclay on Mar 26, 2019 18:42:23 GMT
Themes are flavorful and pretty crucial to competitive play (whether that's competitive at events or "casual competitive" at your LGS). They probably are not going anywhere for a while. This thread isn't about the goodness or badness of themes.
One trend that has not emerged is playing themeless. The benefits of the themes in terms of extra abilities or free models (2-3 pretty easily) can sometimes tip the scales. It's almost a detriment to play without theme.
What if each faction, if no official theme were chosen, had a "Generalist Faction Benefit"?
It might incentivize some cool combos, which are lost if needed models are not allowed in theme, and help even out point differences from free models. New players with less model collection would not be at a straight point disadvantage (but could still buy into their themes later). This would be a relatively simple CID for PP too - just a few theme lists that likely won't upset the current meta or top-level play.
What captures your faction in terms of a single freebie and army/battlegroup benefit? Minimum would be a single free solo (or helper unit) and some faction specific bonus.
Example 1: Faction: Skorne Freebie: One unit of Paingiver Beast Handlers (min or max) Fueled by Pain: Beasts can ignore Frenzy checks during Turn 2 Control Phase. Thoughts: It's easy to get 5-7 points free from any other theme. Beast Handlers are faction defining. Can run hot for Turn 1 without trouble - but nice Skornergy because the Fury is still out there.
Example 2: Faction: Trolls Freebie: One solo Steadfast: One model/unit gains Steady Thoughts: Generic freebie and Steady can mildly help Tough trollkin - but not an entire army worth.
Those were just quick examples. Please re-do them if you'd come up with better ideas.
If this thread catches on, I'll recompile into larger list.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 26, 2019 19:06:07 GMT
There still needs to be some limitations in the list. Irregulars is the most open Theme, and it still has some limitations, like none of the new Steelhead solos or the Cephalyx Warcasters.
And if you're not getting as much benefit as you would from another Theme, then it would not make sense to use this Theme over another. Disciples of Agony is one where people do use it for one benefit, but taking a Dracodile, a Primal Animus, or a Channeler as a Friendly Warbeast can be a huge (or sometimes just fun) benefit, but when compared to free solos, artillery, or Warbeasts, it becomes the "fun" Theme.
|
|
|
Post by coolguyclay on Mar 27, 2019 13:49:50 GMT
There still needs to be some limitations in the list. Irregulars is the most open Theme, and it still has some limitations, like none of the new Steelhead solos or the Cephalyx Warcasters. And if you're not getting as much benefit as you would from another Theme, then it would not make sense to use this Theme over another. Disciples of Agony is one where people do use it for one benefit, but taking a Dracodile, a Primal Animus, or a Channeler as a Friendly Warbeast can be a huge (or sometimes just fun) benefit, but when compared to free solos, artillery, or Warbeasts, it becomes the "fun" Theme. Those are good ideas. My intention is find some middle ground between Theme-less (no free models, no army bonuses, no limitations) and the Themes (many free models, 1-2 army bonuses, limitations). In most cases I would not expect a Generalist Theme to replace the good benefits from the official themes - the official themes are really worth taking!However, right now a Theme-less list is rarely taken over a theme. Does anyone play non-theme at events? There is a big gap in benefits and this would aim to bridge it slightly. Maybe more focused on casual play (the "fun" theme), or that Dark Horse tournament player trying to bring a unique combo or synergy, rather than replacing or being "competitive" with existing themes.
|
|
|
Post by NoSuchMethod on Mar 27, 2019 13:56:59 GMT
So, I'm on board with the concept. If it was me, I'd probably scrap themes entirely and start with a clean slate. I think they create more problems than they solve. But I don't hold out much hope we're going to see that happen. Working within the existing paradigm, having a generalist theme for each faction is arguably the "best bad answer". I agree with Charistoph they would need to have some (minor) restrictions and a slightly lower power level, to keep the narrowly-defined themes interesting.
Alternatively, an idea I've seen kicked around is keeping the themes narrow as a rule, but having a list of "Core Models" for each faction. These would be a selection of classic models, thematically and functionally at the heart of the faction identity, that would be evergreen and explicitly available in every theme. The core would be large enough to build a "core 75" list - something on the order of 3 main combat units, 6 or so support units / solos, and the standard list of casters and jacks/beasts. In cygnar for instance, you might say the Core is: long gunners, sword knights, gunmages, rangers, mechaniks, squire, junior, GMCA, stormsmiths. All are prime and escalation models that are right at the center of the faction and could plausibly appear in concert with any cygnar deployment. A lot of them are also things that could really use a niche, incidentally.
Now, just because you *can* take these models in any theme doesn't mean you would. They wouldn't have much interplay with theme benefits outside of their respective "home" themes. But it would patch a couple of the biggest problems with themes that exist currently. Most critically, it would open up an obvious entry point for each faction to new players. You could buy the Core models and participate in full-sized games and events before committing to a theme. And the models crossing over would make it much easier to transition from one theme in to a new one, or develop the second half of a pair. And for us vets, it would provide a base to open up some of the fun of listbuilding again, without creating the unmanageable infinitely-scaling options the devs worry about.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 27, 2019 18:20:55 GMT
I'd be up for themes with less restrictive unit requirements but slightly more restrictive caster requirements.
For example a khador horse theme list would be
Casters- Vlad Kozlov Old Witch
may include Greylord units and solos, Iron Fang models, Khador models with Cavalry, Winter Guard units and solos, manhunter units and solos, and kossite units and solos, Widowmaker units and solos -For every 25 full points of Cavalry models take a free solo -For each cavalry unit in the list 1 non-cavalry model/unit gains advance move -Casters gain the "Iron Horse" rule.
Very open list selection, but only casters that would take that combination of models. That's what I'd like to see going forward.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Mar 27, 2019 19:15:03 GMT
I'd go simple:
No restrictions means no bonuses. Choose 3 faction solos and add them for free.
Edited from 7. Bad typo.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Mar 27, 2019 19:20:57 GMT
This again? They've said dozens of times that this won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by NoSuchMethod on Mar 27, 2019 19:21:05 GMT
Choose 7 faction solos and add them for free. Well, that seems a touch excessive. I don't have my abacus in front of me, but I think that's about 50 free points in most of the main factions.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 27, 2019 19:31:30 GMT
I'd go simple: No restrictions means no bonuses. Choose 7 faction solos and add them for free. For not being a bonus 7 free faction solos seems pretty spicy... I'd say probably add 15 points to your point total if that's really the route you prefer. That way you can spend it on jacks or units too.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Mar 27, 2019 19:36:05 GMT
This again? They've said dozens of times that this won't happen. Not that I doubt you're right, but source please? I remember the old PP forums used to state "PP says Mk3 won't ever happen!" as if it were set in stone but they really just misquoted DC saying HE will never do a Mk3... Mostly I never believe a businessman when they say "never". If it'll make money, they'll do it, no matter what quote you dredge up from past claiming the contrary. But yeah, non-theme theme lists seem like a bland way to go, that's why I'm hoping they just make themes that are less constrained to one model type but maybe have a more slim caster list. That way we get the model variety and fluffiness of lore inspired army compositions, that don't have to be balanced with EVERY caster in the faction's roster.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 27, 2019 20:03:37 GMT
I will play.
Khador = all solos have tough
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Mar 27, 2019 20:17:58 GMT
I remember the old PP forums used to state "PP says Mk3 won't ever happen!" as if it were set in stone but they really just misquoted DC saying HE will never do a Mk3... There was a direct quote from another staff member saying "We have no plans to release a Mk3". I remember, because I spent several hundred dollars on army boxes after reading it. Later it was claimed that they had been playtesting it for 3 years, either retroactively declaring that statement a lie, or lying about the amount of testing. They released Mk3 without ever using the name Mk3. It was just "the new edition", so they could still say "we never released a Mk3". Wankers.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Mar 27, 2019 20:50:35 GMT
No single game has ever gone Evergreen and stayed relevant. Not Dungeons and Dragons, not Magic the Gathering, not 40k. Edition changes on these types of games are inevitable. Hoping that it won't happen is understandable, but actually expecting an evergreen edition is downright naive. And yea, I do remember that quote, and I also remember it was along the lines of "we hope not to release a Mk3 in a long time" or some such. Mk3 is turning 3 years old this June, and they're already calling out a rules update/remix with the Oblivion boxed set. I would expect a Mk4 within 2 years after that. Far as Themes are concerned, for a Mk4, I would probably just do 50p standard with 25 point sideboard to minimize bad matchups
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Mar 27, 2019 22:16:25 GMT
I didn't expect to never see a Mk3, but I did feel a quote like that meant Mk2 would survive more than a few months.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 28, 2019 2:54:16 GMT
No single game has ever gone Evergreen and stayed relevant. Not Dungeons and Dragons, not Magic the Gathering, not 40k. Closest I've seen is Battletech, but I think that is more the company's lack of resources and fear of reprisals, and it's classification of "relevance" is rather wanting in compared to those you have listed. And even Battletech has seen changes since Wizards of the Coast gave it up, with some progression of the story happening and new gear and concepts being added, but aside from a few tweaks, you can still go back to the original timeline stuff and have it be almost exactly the same when the Clans began their Invasion.
Still, each of the big factions having an Irregulars-type Theme would be nice (though, it really is better as a 'Jack Theme with the last update now). I wouldn't bother including the small factions like CG or Grymkin, since their Themes already have something like this to a point.
On the converse side, as someone else stated, restricting the Battlegroup Controllers in the old Themes ala the Merc Themes or Disciples of Agony, may actually help in that route. As it is with Champions we are already seeing a sample of this, with the restriction to two (or three in Mercs case) Themes with the several Controllers. It could easily be set up so that Champions is limited to the two (or the already exceptioned three) Themes and not bother listing Warcasters and Warlocks because those Themes will already be restricting them down to three or four to begin with.
And no, neither has to come with a Mk 4 because of the dynamic update situation modifying Themes every other month, we can see it happen before New Year's, developers willing. What we would need a new Mk for would be to alter the system to either be more complex or to reduce it. It could shoot for higher levels of detail to make things really crunchy, or reduce the detail akin to Sigmar to make it more quickly accessible.
|
|