gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 3, 2018 17:34:23 GMT
While I fundamentally agree with you that Skorne, particularly Exalted, doesn't have tremendous issues, your reasoning of "war beasts see play and therefore are fine" is flawed. Apart from the fact that 25+ war beast points per caster basically guarantees you will always be playing war beasts, Imperial War Host, one of the only themes to allow turtles, allows nothing BUT war beasts. Taking "the best of what is offered after maximizing the best model available" does not mean "they are just fine". It means they had 65ish other points to fill out and nothing else to spend them on. Are Skorne's themes all viable and functional and intuitive? Absolutely. But it is also true that all their tournament wins are carried by the turtles. Which isn't happening anymore anyway, as they didn't even break a 40% win rate in the last WTC. I don't agree. If a subset of models aren't performing well, they simply don't see play in anything more than the lowest possible quantity. Skorne has plenty of access to beasts that no is disputing the strength or utility of - Basilisks, Archidons, Agonizers, Cyclops Raiders/Shamans, etc. It's not like you couldn't just fill your BG with those models and call it done. Heck, even the gladiator isn't a necessity in a list that doesn't crutch on melee beasts. Similarly, if a theme contains predominantly bad models (and doesn't give an absolutely stellar bonus to balance it out, cough, BI), it won't see serious play (and Imperial Warhost certainly isn't a theme whose benefits would incentivize you to play it notwithstanding it being full of bad models). What the data is showing isn't consistent with that. Imperial Warhost was the most played Skorne theme at the WTC, and has a solid presence on the DGI page. In fact, the most common list on DGI, last time I checked, wasn't Rasheth, it was Zaadesh2 in IW, with 1-2 Turtles (yes, they are in fact extremely strong, this does not mean the rest of the models in question are bad) and a good selection of beasts, including titans and aradus soldiers. And it's not like Skorne doesn't have options, either - Rasheth in Winds is very strong (though it does have it's counters, and Skorne players as a whole seem to crutch harder on that list than they reasonably should.) Mak2 Cats hasn't stopped existing (though it's a bit less of a meta appropriate answer given the prevalance of no-KD tough), and Exalted (even pre-CID) is a very reasonable theme, albeit largely limited to a small selection of casters. If beasts REALLY were that bad, I would not expect to see them played to the extent that they currently are (especially given that they are finding success). As for a 40% win rate at the WTC...eh. It's a team tournament, and none of the numbers this year were egregiously outside the bounds of what I'd expect to see from a balanced game (though Skarre3 is a bit concerning, particularly as paired with BI). There wasn't any factions at a 22% win rate, and there wasn't any factions at a 70+% winrate, so I would be cautious about drawing any conclusions for those results. If pressed to explain them, though, I'd likely say that the likely causes are more likely: 1. The Skorne community is not particularly creative or willing to experiment. There's a lot of untapped potential in the faction, IMO (Mak2 with 40 Swordsmen is a terrifying list, for instance), but the standard Skorne response is 'but turtles.' Which are powerful pieces, but not strong into every meta or matchup. In particular, they're probably not going to be as strong into a team tournament meta that is prepared for Skorne as 'the turtle faction'. 2. Cryx craps on Turtles hard. And there was a whooooole lot of Cryx at the WTC. "Filling those points with light war beasts" is not an option. It never was an option. Because you need things to crack armor spam, and two turtles simply will never be enough. Just because a model MUST be in your list doesn't mean that model is effective at its intended role. It just means there aren't any other better options. Aaand while I don't intend to say that "Skorne has a 38% win rate and therefore needs help", I mean to say that "no matter how broken you think the turtle is, a 38% win rate means that doesn't matter"
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 3, 2018 13:02:56 GMT
While I fundamentally agree with you that Skorne, particularly Exalted, doesn't have tremendous issues, your reasoning of "war beasts see play and therefore are fine" is flawed. Apart from the fact that 25+ war beast points per caster basically guarantees you will always be playing war beasts, Imperial War Host, one of the only themes to allow turtles, allows nothing BUT war beasts. Taking "the best of what is offered after maximizing the best model available" does not mean "they are just fine". It means they had 65ish other points to fill out and nothing else to spend them on. Are Skorne's themes all viable and functional and intuitive? Absolutely. But it is also true that all their tournament wins are carried by the turtles. Which isn't happening anymore anyway, as they didn't even break a 40% win rate in the last WTC. It does seem to imply that either the Warbeasts are fine enough to fight in the game in general or that the Turtles are so OP that they can do well vs armies with more than half of the list being dead weight. I think at one point, you were correct, but as CiD armies continue to come out tuned to 11, they seem less broken all the time. Again, see Skorne's 38% win rate at the WTC.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 3, 2018 12:56:25 GMT
There are certainly things to be fixed in Exalted (Ancestral Guardians stand out to me as decidedly meh for being paragons of skorne martial virtue, and I hope that both Mordikaar and Makeda3 (and maybe Zaal2? he seems underwhelming) get buffs and/or a rework)...but the core of the theme (Immortals) is largely fine. Immortals are not a bad unit, they just suffer from being the only unit in the theme, which leads to inflexible list building, and a small pool of viable casters. Really, what the theme needs more than anything is to get access to a faster (or ranged) infantry option. Similarly, with a few exceptions (the Cannoneer, the Aradus Sentinel, potentially the Bronzeback), Skorne beasts are seeing play (and seeing success) at the highest levels of play. While I fundamentally agree with you that Skorne, particularly Exalted, doesn't have tremendous issues, your reasoning of "war beasts see play and therefore are fine" is flawed. Apart from the fact that 25+ war beast points per caster basically guarantees you will always be playing war beasts, Imperial War Host, one of the only themes to allow turtles, allows nothing BUT war beasts. Taking "the best of what is offered after maximizing the best model available" does not mean "they are just fine". It means they had 65ish other points to fill out and nothing else to spend them on. Are Skorne's themes all viable and functional and intuitive? Absolutely. But it is also true that all their tournament wins are carried by the turtles. Which isn't happening anymore anyway, as they didn't even break a 40% win rate in the last WTC.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 2, 2018 14:42:23 GMT
What? The week 3 Stalker is STR 11 with a POW 6 weapon, making it P+S 17, saying it's 19 is taking Primal for granted and then completely ignoring Rage on Wrastlers? With warp str it is P+S 19 without outside factors like primal. Lets not unnecessarily muddy waters. All of the other heavies he lists though have other advantages. - Legion heavies come with guns and high number of initials thus taking any buff very well. At 16 points the ravagore has an awesome gun and 3 melee initials, at 18 pts the carni has an assault spray and 3x initial with one of them at P+S 18, at 16 pts the sythean has 2x P+S 17 initials and a P+S 15. We're deffinitely in the same ball park here as the stalker at 17pts. - For skorne there is the bronze back with three initials and two of them are P+S 17 and he's got the armor + boxes +1 fury advantages to back him up. Seems pretty comparable to a stalker at 17pts. The Aradus soldier P+S 18 with 2x additional 15s and 16pts. Again we seem to be in the same ball park here - Wrastler comes with rage built in which is one of the best animi in the game. Its the same reason that the feral is 16pts in CID and not down around 14, ditto on the Mauler at 15 when he'd otherwise only be a 12/13 pt beast. War hog basically sits at fury 3 and 2xP+S 18 with a P+S 17. Seems fair at 15pts when compared to CID satyrs at 3 fury. Please do elaborate why you think the stalker should be an outlier at 19pts gordo? Remember it trades an initial attack and armor for the def and spd advantage and if you want to bring up the other warps then lets please consider the fact that it is P+S 17 and 15 then. Nope, not biting. If you don't see it, that's on you. To your credit, you don't need to after that ridiculous CiD, so I guess more power to you.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 2, 2018 13:33:18 GMT
17 pts for a P+S 19 beater is cheap now? ... Yes? Obviously so. Compare it to Legion heavies, or Skorne heavies, or Gatormen heavies, or how about every heavy war-beast out there??? Now, there possibly is an argument that all those other heavies are over-costed. But compared to nearly every other heavy war beast, Warp-wolves at week 3 are insane (possible exception of Skin & Moans)
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 1, 2018 19:47:35 GMT
In WTC 2018, there were exactly zero lists that took more than one non-character Nephilim. Of the 60 lists, 7 of them had 1 Nephilim light beast. 4 Bolt Throwers, 2 Bloodseer, and 1 Protector, and 0 Soldiers. And how many of those Bolt Throwers weren't with Lylyth or Vayl? Zero.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 1, 2018 18:34:38 GMT
In WTC 2018, there were exactly zero lists that took more than one non-character Nephilim. Of the 60 lists, 7 of them had 1 Nephilim light beast. 4 Bolt Throwers, 2 Bloodseer, and 1 Protector, and 0 Soldiers.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Oct 1, 2018 13:49:20 GMT
I think some of the problem with Nephilim is really a problem that exists for almost all light war beasts (not jacks): they simply aren't very good. Usually the only time you see them in lists is for utility animus, or in the occasional list that has Synergy or some other ridiculous Field Marshal. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority of tournament lists simply do not run them unless they have some kind of utility function. Shooting light beasts work out okay sometimes, but those lists aren't very common.
I think some of this is endemic to the way Fury vs Focus works. It becomes extremely difficult to run lots of beasts without lots fury management. Since both the fury management and the beast-buffs out there are fairly limited, they are usually better spent on supporting your heavies instead of your lights. Of course, Children of the Dragon only compounds these issues by denying access to heavy war beasts and removing access to your best fury managers (Forsaken). So you end up with an army that (points wise) is supposed to be primarily composed of fury inefficient models that are best used as utility beasts. That's why the only time you ever see it run in tournaments is with character beast spam.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 26, 2018 13:15:50 GMT
The Slam guns on the Hurricane are not AoEs though. Right, and slam on an AoE probably too much. That ammo type should probably remove the AoE aspect. Or at the very least make it only trigger on a direct hit. Closest effect I can find to such a thing is the Critical Devastation rule from Conquest. Free differences there, as that works on any base size, but obviously is limited to Critical only. I could possibly see an "all barrels" star attack that had a non-critical Devastation effect.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 26, 2018 12:37:32 GMT
I had a similar thought to the Momentum, but it's way too strong on D3+1 AoEs. What if the Cannoneer had RoF2 and a *Attack without an AoE, but with Momentum? Well, Momentum isn't much different to the Thunder Slam they gave the Hurricane. Only the Mammoth has worse RAT and no other guns and no anti-flight tech.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 25, 2018 19:33:14 GMT
Crazy thought. What if the Mammoth destroyed terrain pieces by advancing either over them, or perhaps making a power attack that brings it B2B with the terrain piece. There is a precedent in Siege1 feat. It could be confined to just walls, or obstructions, or both. It definitely has a "I demolish things" look to it, and if it could get rid of walls, or even better, obstructions, that would add some fantastic tech to our shooting. Plus it would really help it deal with its slow speed preventing it from clearing walls.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 25, 2018 18:00:11 GMT
It's called Chimestry I think. Chymestry? Whatever, mystical science voodo of blasting powder. Chemistry is the modern English term, but in days back when it was mystical, it was called alchemy, with alchemical being the adjective form.
Ammo types for the gun with Crater a concept I can see, except Pathfinders would be able to easily ignore it. I would also look at the Commodore for inspiration, as they are of a size. They have the Cannister Spray shot, a slamming cannonball, and an incendiary shot.
Though, if kept to a single type, would a base Crater with Critical Knockdown be favorable and keep its guns up to speed, or should it have Spray and Scather options as well?
I would love to see Momentum.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 25, 2018 13:10:20 GMT
Unless hyper-mobile or flying, I don't see a melee focused gargantuan as being effective. Their base is simply too large and there is too much blocking terrain (flags, objectives, obstructions, walls) as well as the ability for jamming infantry to make this concept work.
So we are left with a buff-bot or an artillery piece. I think the most interesting pieces are both. The concept of the piece seems pretty straight forward, so I'm thinking its buff abilities need to be traditional in nature (i.e. non magical). So let's give it ammo types:
Flare: already an option in faction, this would help Slingers and our artillery pieces get more play
Erosion or Poison: Both already accessible in faction, I suspect both would be too strong unless the basic stats on the gun drop significantly. Unlikely.
Crater: Something like this could really buff Skorne's "come to me" game. Throwing down difficult terrain to slow them down while they come to us could be great
Incendiary or High Explosive: Gives the Mammoth some good anti infantry game, something I don't see very often in Imperial Warhost (and probably won't until the Aradus Sentinel gets re-worked)
Burning Ground: Area denial seems to be a staple of the Warmachine Colossals, and they do seem to be the closest analog to the Mammoth.
I stayed away from the Crucible Guard ammo types because they felt too advanced (even though slingers and Mortitheurgy are clearly doing some kinda crazy alchemical-things)
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 24, 2018 20:05:04 GMT
I don't ever recall the Mammoth being considered viable in Mk2. It may have been the "most viable Gargantuan", but that was a pretty low bar in Mk2 (not counting the Blightgorgers). It was called that because it had the only effective ranged attack of the Gargantuans. Hence, why I'm focusing on the gun itself. Also, its mk2 stats are pretty much irrelevant. The editions are too different for these kinds of comparisons to be helpful.
I rather disagree in this case. The mechanics behind everything still apply now as they did back then. Range and AOE still work the same. RAT still works the same. ROF is different, but far easier for the Garg to use. The only thing that really has changed is what abilities can/cannot synergise with it now and which ones are available.
Sure, you can compare those stats in a vacuum, but that would be ignoring all the system changes between then and now, as well as the changes to steamroller formats and other factions. We're discussing balance and viability, which inherently must include the consideration of other models... Far too many of the latter have changed since mk2 for us to say "well, this was the problem in Mk2, so let's just fix that and we are good"
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Sept 24, 2018 17:44:53 GMT
2) Rush-while-running. I wish all Titans would gain that rule. Basically like the heavy boiler on the Kodiak, but worded to explicitly give Rush while running. That would have the advantage of including pathfinder (which the Kodiak has baseline) and the limitation of not stacking with Rush from other sources (such as the animus). Alternatively SPD5, but I think the former is more elegant. Either would help it get into the fight in time. The rule mentioned under 2) could be worded like this: Unstoppable advance: This model gains Rush while running (insert rule text of Rush here).
Or not list Rush at all and just state, "When this model Runs it gains Pathfinder can can move three times its SPD instead of two." End result is the same. The goal really should be to get the Mammoth, and all Gargantua, to be on the same footing as most of the colossals. This is especially true for the Mammoth, as he bears the most resemblance to them: slow, meaty, good melee output but too slow to get there, and big guns. However, its ranged output is weak By comparison to those colossals. It's too slow to have meaningful melee output. Lastly, it's pretty expensive for how "able to take it in the face" that it is. A "melee only" gargantuan is probably not viable as a concept. Their base size is too large, too unwieldy, too easily blocked for them to serve this function. Gargantua all have "melee as a backup" thanks to their massive size, but it probably won't work as their primary means of providing meaningful effect on the battlefield. So I'm inclined to address to have it function as an artillery piece first, resembling the Conquest. Given the sheer size of the cannons on the model, this doesn't seem unreasonable from a fluff perspective. Compared to the Conquest right now, it has significantly worse use in an anti infantry role, worse survivability, and worse threat range. It's also worth mentioning that I've literally never seen Conquest in a list, so even if we are chasing that paradigm, the Mammoth would need to do it better to be considered a success. Which aspect of its gun is considered the downgrade from Mk 2? The AOE or RoF? I remember the Mammoth being considered the only viable Gargantuan because of its gun. It gained 2" in Range, lost 1" on AOE, RAT increased by 1, and went from RoF: 3 to D3+1. Should the gun get an effect, such as Critical Pitch or Critical Knockdown? I don't ever recall the Mammoth being considered viable in Mk2. It may have been the "most viable Gargantuan", but that was a pretty low bar in Mk2 (not counting the Blightgorgers). Also, its mk2 stats are pretty much irrelevant. The editions are too different for these kinds of comparisons to be helpful.
|
|