|
Post by chillychinaman on Sept 20, 2020 18:18:57 GMT
So with another CID here, I think it's safe to say that PP is mostly staying the course on the power level of light warbeasts.
From what I've seen online and from past discussions, light warbeasts are generally only when they can provide a powerful animus and/or provide moderate ranged pressure.
This leaves non-support oriented, melee beasts to sit on shelves for most of the edition.
If hypothetically, PP were to hold a "light warbeast CID," what changes would they need to implement so that people would seriously consider fielding light warbeasts, particularly melee ones? Would just slashing costs alone be enough? Or a warlock equivalent of power up for light beasts so that larger battlegroups can be managed?
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Sept 20, 2020 23:33:53 GMT
In order for melee lights to see play, they need to fill a battlefield niche that isn't better filled by a different model/unit. I'm not sure what role they could reasonably fill that isn't better done by another model/unit. They don't hit hard enough to take out heavies. They can't get to solos that are protected by the front line. They don't usually take up enough space on the board to serve as roadblocks. They don't have enough attacks to break up jamming units.
If I had to pick a role I think they could fill that would be good it would be that last one. With things like thresher, berserk + overtake, or other ways to chew through lots of dudes melee lights could serve as a way to clear the road for your harder hitting models to get to the big juicy targets you actually want to kill.
With a role like that, they aren't competing with heavies for raw damage, elite units for the combination of attacks + power or chaff units for jamming.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Sept 21, 2020 1:26:51 GMT
To be fair as well, there are several different weapon setups for lights. There is a difference between the several different Cyclops, for example. Only the Savage is borne down by a lack of a greater role taken over by literally any cheap Heavy.
Even comparing them against Light Warjacks tends to fall flat as most Light Warjacks trend to carry two weapons, while the damage Light Warbeasts tend to only have one.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 21, 2020 9:59:13 GMT
In order for melee lights to see play, they need to fill a battlefield niche that isn't better filled by a different model/unit. I'm not sure what role they could reasonably fill that isn't better done by another model/unit. They don't hit hard enough to take out heavies. They can't get to solos that are protected by the front line. They don't usually take up enough space on the board to serve as roadblocks. They don't have enough attacks to break up jamming units. If I had to pick a role I think they could fill that would be good it would be that last one. With things like thresher, berserk + overtake, or other ways to chew through lots of dudes melee lights could serve as a way to clear the road for your harder hitting models to get to the big juicy targets you actually want to kill. With a role like that, they aren't competing with heavies for raw damage, elite units for the combination of attacks + power or chaff units for jamming. yep, that's pretty much it. a model needs to help with either support, attrition, or scenario to be relvant. as it stands most lights don't have the attacks, as you've said, but also the mobility to take out large swathes of enemy models and pay back their own cost. and most WMH armies are built around hitting hard and fast, not facetanking, so lights aren't good for that either. If your 8-10 points model took out 2-3 infantry models costed at 1.5 each, and then gets blasted off the board, you've made a terrible trade. Grymkin Rattlers are a good example of a light that can pay for itself - FURY 3, POW 13x2, berserk + overtake means they have a good chance of mulching infantry, and I've seen some batreps where they cleaned up entire units in a single turn. The issue is that if every light fills this exact same niche, there's zero interest and reason to take one over the other. This leads us back to the only difference/relevance being a powerful animus - and making some models less specialized wouldn't improve this much either. You can take the infantry mulcher, or you take something that's less specialized - and ask yourself, why didn't I take a heavy? I definitely like the concept of lights being geared towards clearing chaff and heavies being designed to take other heavies out, as a general rule. By the way, from what I've seen the Savage sometimes sees use in Makeda3 lists. It has a solid threat range (11') which is one of her lists' weaknesses, she boosts its defense to 15 with Bulwark, and with BHPG+Incite she boosts it to P+S 17 without any direct investment. Slap on Rush or Rage if needed and you have a pretty nice missile. Still has the same issue with infantry clearing, but that's not supposed to be Makeda3's strong suit to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Sept 21, 2020 15:22:01 GMT
Make them more efficient animus can be a solution. Light warjack and beasts are already take the support role and avoid the direct combat role. They are one of the worst pick for the direct combat role in the game as well.
There are some light beasts that CAN fight and a few of them are actually decent line combat models. But most lights are not. Also their point is expensive than the most other support lines so only for the support is hard to call a proof either.
Well, being a light makes them weaker statline and weapons than their heavy counterparts. Because they have the resource management system their basic weapons are usually weaker than the combat solos. So... perhaps allow them to fight as much as a combat solo even without fury seems worthwhile. After all they usually costs two solos, so it isn't bad that much.
Around +1 point of ARM may a solution? It doesn't change their fate when they face the enemy heavies, but the change makes them more durable against units.
Give them a sure role that mimics a heavy seems not so bad. See Hunter, that has the similar gun with a Defender. Although it results Hunter overshadows Defender, though.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 21, 2020 16:19:29 GMT
something that could maybe be a solution would be to add round(or was it square? the ones beasts can control) to the outskirts of some scenarios, so using cheaper beasts would allow more scenario presence. but then, if you're using a beast just for that, you're better off using a lesser.
|
|
bundeez
Junior Strategist
Posts: 325
|
Post by bundeez on Sept 21, 2020 16:33:07 GMT
I think they need a good mix of price and abilities and a good supporting caster. Let's take a look at Dervish spam: Cheap light with 2 attacks that has good movement to come around, and with Amons Synergy in the back, able to kill almost anything. Vyros2 and Griffon spam: Cheap. Fast. Synergy. Una2: similar abilities. Now about Trollbloods: Back in mk2 they had a theme force called 'Elemental Evolutionary' (something like that ) which gave a discount on the element lights (cheap) played with Calandra (re-roll dice aka damage buff). Now they can all shoot as well but my point is they became cheap enough that you could spam to a point where attrition became viable with the list. I think lights at around 7 points makes most sense. Like the Basher - they almost nailed that melee light. Niche ability you would want in a lot of lists, but only 1 initial and a crit effect makes sure that it's not reliable enough = see no table time. The problem is also the fury mechanic. You can't spam as effectively as with warjacks, due to control area, fury and limited fury management. I like the new CoC lights. 6-7 points, fragile but with solid output, just as a light should be. I think the animus of melee light warbeasts is too much of a drawback but PP value it too high.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Sept 21, 2020 16:58:03 GMT
Thanks for the responses everyone. So, going off the responses here, it sounds like melee light beasts lack a role that the fulfill well and affordably.
Hypothetically, if all light(melee?) warbeasts had their points cut in half would they be taken more? Ignoring the logistics of having to purchase more models, this would allow warlocks to field larger battle groups. Assuming the lights can be buffed, this should in my mind, give them an upperhand in attrition and scenario pressure. Even without buffs, I would think being able to shove throwaway lights down the enemy's throat should at least help you dictate engagements better and soften anchor pieces before the real frontlines meet.
Would this logic work out in practice? I understand PP would most likely not go this route, but I wonder if lights, at least some lights, are so bad they probably wouldn't be worth it even if they were free.
Edit: Another idea, if lights were allowed to have either a heavy's firepower /or/ it's durability or utility, but never both, would they be worthwhile? You can have powerful cheap glasscannons, or solid bricks, that can only sit and score.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 21, 2020 17:52:39 GMT
Thanks for the responses everyone. So, going off the responses here, it sounds like melee light beasts lack a role that the fulfill well and affordably. Hypothetically, if all light(melee?) warbeasts had their points cut in half would they be taken more? Ignoring the logistics of having to purchase more models, this would allow warlocks to field larger battle groups. Assuming the lights can be buffed, this should in my mind, give them an upperhand in attrition and scenario pressure. Even without buffs, I would think being able to shove throwaway lights down the enemy's throat should at least help you dictate engagements better and soften anchor pieces before the real frontlines meet. Would this logic work out in practice? I understand PP would most likely not go this route, but I wonder if lights, at least some lights, are so bad they probably wouldn't be worth it even if they were free. Edit: Another idea, if lights were allowed to have either a heavy's firepower /or/ it's durability or utility, but never both, would they be worthwhile? You can have powerful cheap glasscannons, or solid bricks, that can only sit and score. On paper, I remember reading a warjack with 1 focus is supposed to function about as well as a warbeast that runs hot. A 'jack with 2 focus should function like a beast with a 2 cost animus/spell on it. keep that in mind in terms of hitting power of 'jacks vs 'beasts. it's also why jack spam tends to work better than beast spam - the 'jack only needs to start its activation in the caster's control to get loaded up, a beast needs to stay inside to max out fury. If light beasts had their cost cut in half you'd never see the end of light spam lists. Just look at the Gorehound, it sees a lot of use at 6 points. 3-4 point lights would be absolutely insane. Same thing with buffing their innate damage output to a heavy's level - it'd shift the game to be focused around delivering your little baby Longinuses to the opponent's heavies, or, more likely in that type of meta, their Caster. Heavies would become completely redundant, because this is a game based on delivering the first strike, if you can pay half the price for the same firepower, you can jam the heavy with one beast and then finish it off with the second. or outgun it, if it's ranged, since you're packing twice the heat. or kill it on the alpha, because that's the one advantage lights currently have. again, no thanks. As for durability or utility - just look at the Binki brigade. Destroyers cost 14 points and see some use, mainly as a meme build though, but if you could get that amount of durability for 7 points they'd crush the meta. Alpha strike or not, there's realistically only so much a player can chew through. There's no such thing as a model that's so bad you wouldn't want it for free, assuming we're not talking about req options. I don't like light beasts as req options either, I think those should continue to be a way to steer the player towards fielding hard support models. So, free models: even models like Cask Imps are decent picks. A light beast for free is crazy. I also intentionally didn't bring up the subject of Synergy earlier - while you need to consider the fact that it exists, I think it's a design mistake to build lights entirely around the spell, because it means there's no reason to play them unless it's a Synergy caster.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Sept 21, 2020 18:08:49 GMT
Warbeasts costing less wouldn't necessarily increase a Warlock's Battlegroup. Both Warcasters and Warlocks both have a similar problem in supporting a certain number of models well. In some factions this is alleviated by other models, like the Beast Handlers or Steelhead Arcanists, but not every faction has those at present, or have them as a ubiquitous option.
Now, it would increase the likelihood of certain models being taken, as their costs are part of the problem, but those would take the place of ones replacing them already instead of being added in addition to them.
And that doesn't even consider how that would affect Battlebox games.
As for increasing their abilities, it would really be based on model by model basis. A Cyclops Brute should have the most durability of the Cyclops, but it shouldn't match a Titan's, but its armor could match a Gladiator's, but not a Sentry's. Firepower is another thing to consider as well, but I'm not sure how to address it as it may change how they operate. A Cyclops Raider may be able to look at a D3 RoF, but I don't see how a Savage would be getting a second Initial without some special rule. Either of those options would also indicate an increase in point cost as well.
|
|
bundeez
Junior Strategist
Posts: 325
|
Post by bundeez on Sept 21, 2020 18:19:46 GMT
Half the price is too cheap but I see your point.
Another idea could be to remove animi from lights to compensate for the cheaper potential cost. Then give them long leash or some other minor ability, since controlling square zones on either flank is often difficult in Hordes.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Sept 21, 2020 18:48:56 GMT
Warbeasts costing less wouldn't necessarily increase a Warlock's Battlegroup. Both Warcasters and Warlocks both have a similar problem in supporting a certain number of models well. In some factions this is alleviated by other models, like the Beast Handlers or Steelhead Arcanists, but not every faction has those at present, or have them as a ubiquitous option.may For this, I was working under the assumption that you'd have more bodies throw around you wouldn't worry so much about having support for them all. In essence I was thinking of lights becoming trade initiators. Although it bothers me from a fluff perspective that non-Legion warlocks can churn out and throwaway living creatures under their command like military materiel, but things like frenzying become less of an issue when the beasts are meant to be disposable. The idea is to throw them forward and force the opponents to deal with them. At the very least, the force the opponent to commit /some/ resources toward dealing with the light in their line, and in the best case scenario, they ding an opposing piece and prepare it for slaughter later on. Edit: shmeepI see your point and concede that turning lights into bricks or sledgehammers will either just be a return to Old Meat/Metal Mtn builds or push the game even harder into alpha strike strategies.
|
|
snoozer
Junior Strategist
Posts: 467
|
Post by snoozer on Sept 23, 2020 6:14:48 GMT
I think what has been forgotten here is that lights are very hard to remove for their cost. You see this in brawlmachine a lot, if I put a light somewhere then the oponent has to commit something big to remove it, or they won't remove it.
I think it is this defensive role that makes lights good. They lose out against heavies and win against infantry or if they have to contest something while shooting or supporting.
This does not translate well to 75 points, where there are more resourses to remove them plus a armor cracking meta, but maybe their cost/toughness still helps them out. If I play a real game on a table, suddenly it feels very good to have that piece still standing around in turn 4!
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Sept 24, 2020 13:30:36 GMT
Maybe some new power attacks for lights only?
Maybe remove animi from heavies, or at least make them worse, so that you're forced to take lights to get (good) animi?
I think a lower cost could work, not half but maybe a point or two. You'd have to decrease HP or ARM or something to ensure that spam wouldnt be too powerful. Or you could control spam with FA, but PP havent been interested in doing that in the past.
I do agree with Snoozer, lights rock at Brawlmachine and that format doesnt allow spam.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Sept 25, 2020 6:13:17 GMT
Power attack costs you to forced and generates 1 fury point. Also it means light WARJACKs are also get this. Although light warjacks are also not that good, but they are far, far better than light warbeasts right now. But we need a special treatment for the light warbeasts.
And power attack requires the jack/beasts to be close to the enemy, but ranged warbeasts are struggle to enjoy this. You need to remember that ranged light warjacks are generally on the good place but many ranged light warbeasts are inferior to them(even consider fury tax and the fact that Hordes generally have inferior guns).
That said, my Hunters are renown for its hard head, for I frequently order them to head butt when their left arm is crippled.
|
|