|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Apr 30, 2017 16:54:19 GMT
So the way I see it is: The battle engine currently works with a small number of casters in wg theme. Adding more boxes to it doesn't change what lists it goes in because it still does the same stuff it always did and still has the same problems it always had and still only works with that small selection of casters. Netherby, let's actually talk about this for a minute - specifically, which casters. I'll stick to the WG theme. I'm not on a soap box ...just want to puzzle this through. In War Room order. "A" = does well with this caster, and this caster can also support the Carraige "B" = doesn't do particularly well with the caster, but the caster likes the theme and yeah...you could take it if you want to. "C" = either theme is not a great fit, or this model isn't a great fit. Yes, you can do it, but not your most competitive option. "D" = You really like the model and the them, and want to use them, but should avoid doing so here. Strak 2 - A or B Probably likes WG theme for cheap last stand dudes, and has a couple of great buff spells. Sorscha 2 - A or B ... I haven't figured out S2 yet in MK3. The theme is probably good for her, and the GC will appreciate her feat. Karchev - D ... Karchev likes the WG theme with some artillary for advance moves. I used the GC with Karchev when you could sac pawn to it. It was fun. Irusk 1 - Not sure... I hardly play him. Malakov - Ditto. Harkevich - D ... Similar to Karchev. Strak 1 - A or B ... Some synergy with the caster and I think Strak likes the WG theme. Butcher 2 ... Not sure... I hardly play him. Sorscha 1 ... A ... Yeah, the GC works great on the feat. Sorscha zips around all over the f-ing place and the GC can keep up. Butcher 3 ... A or B ... I think B3 likes the WG theme. The large base is nice. He likes long range blasts to kill squishy support. Koslov ... A or B... Fury and the feat work here for the GC. Zerkova 2 ... Not sure... I hardly play her Old Witch 1 ... Not sure... I hardly play her. Butcher 1 A or B... Feat and Fury have some synergy, and B1 likes the theme. Irusk 2 ... B ... Why weren't you bringing more infantry? Buuut... He likes the WG theme, and the GC is probably a great FFE target. Vlad 3 ... B ... Does the feat work on the GC? Like V2, HOF will go a long way on this model. Vlad 2 ... B ... You're giving up stuff you want to fit it in... But HOF on this model goes a long way. Vlad 1 - A ... you're losing some rockets, but S&P and the GC is awesome. (Did I miss someone). This is rough... please, debate!
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 30, 2017 17:17:40 GMT
Armchair, the way you listed out you listed out any possible benefit the Gun Carriage could EVER receive. The question is of course not whatever benefit it could receive as much as which benefits it wants to get more than something else. Its like saying Strahkov2 should take battle mechanics because he can last stand them and has has good buffs. The question is what about those mechanics over anything else? Or uniquely so for it? Like Vlad 1 with Doom reavers is an example because it can buff their hitting power regularly despite not being able to give them buffs. But again Vlad 1 Gives everything a buff so its relative. This sort of list could be done with anything. I think more then anything it depends on what you like out of the GC and possibly your meta. If it aint working for you, then you wouldn't want to give it buffs. Like why the heck would I ever put Fury on the Gun Carriage for the best possible effect of....+3 Damage on possible 2 Pow 14 attacks (1 Being Unboosted). Theoretically anything appreciates a damage buff or a accuracy buff. The question is why would I put it on something over anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Apr 30, 2017 19:25:19 GMT
RD - a couple points here. I think the battle mechs are a great addition to a Strak 2 army. You might have wanted them anyway because they can repair your Conquest, and then once someone removes your Conquest you can counterattack with last standing mechs. Glorious.
The "you might have wanted them anyway" is where I'm starting off the point I'm trying to make. I already know you don't like the Battle Engine, so saying "just take something else" doesn't narrow the field.
Yes, my list does start with "what can this caster do for the battle engine". That might be a flaw in my argument, but maybe not - it narrows the list down for those of us who think the model has some inherent utility.
As for your question about Fury, I can think of reasons I'd put it on the GC. Let's take a B1 WG Kommand rocket list. That's inherently a slow list (a reason in and of itself that he might want the SPD of the GC) and in WG theme you've got nothing else fast you want to put it on early on. So lets say turn 1 I run my stuff up, putting IF on a unit of WG and Fury on the GC. Turn 2 (or 3), I'm going to feat, and when I do that Gun Carraige is going to careen in to my opponent with +3 damage to *all it's impact attacks* as well as the mount charge attack. I'm liking 3d6+17 better than 3d6+14 on all of those attacks...and I didn't give up anything to get them. I get my boosted dual attacks on all that knocked down stuff, then I repo out of the way and let the winterguard do their job.
The point of my post was to start this type of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 30, 2017 20:32:53 GMT
RD - a couple points here. I think the battle mechs are a great addition to a Strak 2 army. You might have wanted them anyway because they can repair your Conquest, and then once someone removes your Conquest you can counterattack with last standing mechs. Glorious. I use Battle Mechanics with every list because I like my stuff in tip-top shape, and they do work as backup things to die, my argument being that just because something can be better with buffs, doesn't make it worthwhile on its own as that buff slot could be occupied with something else. Fair enough. But I find this sort of discussion very fruitless because it just goes down to personal preference. I find objective measures of damage or effects a better middle ground to discuss this sort of deal. Discussing a film's cinematography I find is better then to discuss if people liked it or not. Now Il be fair and admit that allot of my Distaste for the current WGGC is that I don't see it doing something very interesting. Its got a few one note things going for it (In my opinion) and if you shut those singular things down, thats allot of points doing nothing but surviving for a very extended period of time. And in my opinion (Which can be chalked up to meta, but I will argue is a bit larger then that) the things that shut it down are very common. In comparison, much of our other bread and butter, even when it has some of its aspects shut down, can still do much more admirably, even if not as survivable.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on May 1, 2017 7:20:15 GMT
Well, Sorscha1 is the gold standard for running the GC. So let's start by looking at why that is the case.
-Obviously her feat is the ultimate accuracy fix, but she also can freeze a unit every turn.
-She needs/wants to play forward enough to be in range to freeze stuff, but also needs something to hide behind. The GC is fast enough to keep up and provides a BIG hard to kill thing to keep her safe.
-She is very strapped for focus, so doesn't want focus hungry jacks and wouldn't get more out of taking jacks over the GC.
So Sorscha fixes its accuracy while it facilities her forward positioning. Also the focus efficiency makes it a better choice than more jacks in her case.
Based on this analysis then, for a caster to work with the GC they probably need to fix its accuracy while not getting more out of spending the 18 points on jacks.
|
|
|
Post by zerfius on May 3, 2017 16:06:45 GMT
I think the problem isn't that it is bad, just that it is uninteresting. I think this means that it is unlikely to be changed during CID but I guess that doesn't mean we can't hope it gets something to make it more compelling from a gameplay perspective. Isn't this the very definition of Khador? Uninteresting, solid models? I have not used it yet, but I intend to pick one up soon. It seems like it has some nice perks (big guns, rough terrain, survivability) and not a whole lot of down side.... especially if you want to use it in theme. I know I am still new, but it just seems like the GC is decidedly Khadorian.
|
|
|
Post by DemonCalibre on May 3, 2017 16:12:03 GMT
Having played the Gun Carriage a great deal(Pre CID), I am not 100% sure it should be better at all, while I suspect it could benefit from a small number of HP to keep it from getting blasted off the board against sell out shooting lists. I worried that there is going to be a point where the Carriage is effectively impervious to harm, and still have a force projection of most of the board.
In one of the games I played I managed to kill all of my opponents heavy hitters, I had a Healthy Juggernaut, and gun Carriage left. I spoke with my opponent after comparing the Juggernaut being unkillable and the Gun Carriage being unkillable in the same spot, and he said the Carriage was much worse. Why? because it could impact most of the board, where he could try to bog down the Juggernaut to make up for the fact he didn't have the assets to kill it readily anymore.
My over all concern is lists denegerating into lists that are taking pot shots at each other, and not really fighting, high HP fast shooting models help do this, also scenarios where bold moves aren't rewarded compound it.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 3, 2017 16:52:54 GMT
I think the problem isn't that it is bad, just that it is uninteresting. I think this means that it is unlikely to be changed during CID but I guess that doesn't mean we can't hope it gets something to make it more compelling from a gameplay perspective. Isn't this the very definition of Khador? Uninteresting, solid models? I have not used it yet, but I intend to pick one up soon. It seems like it has some nice perks (big guns, rough terrain, survivability) and not a whole lot of down side.... especially if you want to use it in theme. I know I am still new, but it just seems like the GC is decidedly Khadorian. Most of Khadors units are actually pretty nuanced and can do fun things under different casters. The GC does the same few things with everyone.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on May 3, 2017 17:29:38 GMT
Isn't this the very definition of Khador? Uninteresting, solid models? I have not used it yet, but I intend to pick one up soon. It seems like it has some nice perks (big guns, rough terrain, survivability) and not a whole lot of down side.... especially if you want to use it in theme. I know I am still new, but it just seems like the GC is decidedly Khadorian. Most of Khadors units are actually pretty nuanced and can do fun things under different casters. The GC does the same few things with everyone. I am starting to warm to the idea of a sp 10 Gun Carriage. Yeah - I am getting WAY too excited about casting Quicken on things ;-)
|
|
|
Post by auraco on May 3, 2017 17:39:01 GMT
But I thought you were excited about casting Inviolable Resolve on it Sand
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on May 3, 2017 18:44:24 GMT
But I thought you were excited about casting Inviolable Resolve on it Sand I am excited about BOTH ;-) He is the tool box caster of all tool box casters ;-)
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 3, 2017 22:08:38 GMT
Week 2 update:
Trample chamged to Line Breaker (additional die on impact attack rolls)
Cannon down from Rng 12 to Rng 8
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 3, 2017 22:14:12 GMT
Week 2 update: Trample chamged to Line Breaker (additional die on impact attack rolls) Cannon down from Rng 12 to Rng 8 I give up. PP has an idea, and stick to it everybody else be damned to hell. Unless the reply is a universal anger, its not being changed. Like just...Wow. The one thing that was its claim to fame was its long attack range and long safety radius. Now its attack range is 20 Inches, similar to a Destroyer with any sort of Speed buff, and it actually has to sit closer to the action then a estroyerD now.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on May 3, 2017 22:21:23 GMT
Rng 8 bloody 8? It might as well not have guns.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 3, 2017 22:22:47 GMT
Rng 8 bloody 8? It might as well not have guns. Hey it can Trampl....Oh Wait IT CAN'T EVEN ****** TRAMPLE! Its attack range is 16 Inches! The DESTROYER has an equal BIGGER attack range to it now! What the heck!
|
|