gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 6, 2017 14:21:04 GMT
The calls to change the price on the angelius are interesting. It's a swiss-army-knife beast, it does a lot of things while not being the best at any of them. It offers unique tools and strategic opportunities, and is one of the best assassination beasts around, especially now that armor pierce works against any base size. What are people imagining it's 'for' to justify a point reduction? For the utility it brings, I think its point cost is fine. Maybe it just needs a tiny bit of tweaking, but for a beast with so many utilities already it's hard to think of a lot of things that wouldn't change too much. -It can spike high single-attack damage, which is good when you're only going to get one attack in to counter certain rules, like repel, etc. -It has excellent survivability with its high defense, decent armor, and immunity to knockdown. -Its threat range is massive with reach, SPD 7, and flight. -Repulsion is an amazing animus with a ton of different utilities from pushing things off objetives, to aggressively disengaging models, to just letting the archangel move in, create an opening, and then exploit that opening itself. -It has overtake to fill a half-decent anti-infantry role in a pinch. -Crit-fire hand cannon. Most of these things it does well, and if I had a choice to change it, I wouldn't change its points because the lower it gets the more it's just competing with the neraph - which is also an inexpensive toolbox heavy. Instead I'd rather the angelius be buffed to fit its bracket, without necessarily changing its role or function much. Some ideas: -MAT 7 & RAT 6 -Increase the pow of the gun to 13/14 so it's less of an afterthought utility and more of a main weapon. -Armor 18 or more health boxes to make it tougher. -PS15 on the tail. -Repulsion cost 1. I really think Lanz has good points here. The Angelius really brings a lot to the table, but I do find it somehow underperforming for its point cost. So what do we want it to actually be better at? Right now, it has a very mixed bag: Overtake and two initials and reach make it seem like it should be good at infantry removal, yet MAT 7 holds it back. The AP tail strike makes it feel good at War-noun hunting, but it's low PS frequently makes it bounce ineffectively. It's ranged weapon is nice for solo hunting in its approach, but it doesn't do much else. However, all of these combined give it good assassination potential, as they all have uses when carving something out. So what aspect do we want to make better? Anti-infantry role? Ranged threat? War-noun hunting? I think I'd like to see it gain Assault, so that its gun would be useful in all turns instead of the one-to-none turns it is used now. Reading about the assault on that one dragon by the multiple Archangels and Angelii by Lylyth3, I was inspired by how they crippled its bite by gouging it in the chin with their tails. This made me think... Precision Strike. This would further emphasize its "surgical strike" role, allowing it to cripple war-nouns without killing them, letting it further double down on their fairly good defensive stats. It wouldn't make it any better at assassination, which it really doesn't need any help on. I also don't think it would compete with Nephilim Soldiers because of its much higher point cost (as well as the CotD theme). But this would cause it to clash with Zuriel, so... Maybe this is too far. Then again, he's only available to CotD or Saeryn, so there isn't as much overlap here. I've often felt that the problem with the Angelius is the points inefficiency of the rest of Legion. At its sitting speed and threat range, it probably wouldn't be fair if it could kill jacks without help. The answer feels like it should require their targets be softened up with ranged attacks from other beasts beforehand... Only Ravagores cost too much with no survivability for this too be viable, and Nephilim Bolters didn't seem right for it either. Ideally archers would do so, but they aren't allowed in the same lists for reasons, so... Really I think to make the Angelius better, we just need to address the rest of Legion instead.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 22:29:55 GMT
I think warspear are actually fairly decen,t if they would just get some frontline to help deliver them. And warmongers will almost certainly get a look. Available in the CID might also cover the Ogrun theme force, which then covers every warbeast. That being said, I guess we could discuss HOW to make warmongers decent... or forget about them and wildly speculate about rotwings and the chosen? The question is what the warmongers role would be next to warspears, chosen and rotwings. With Berserk, probably infantry removal (something warspears are not good at). But maybe the chosen with impact attacks could fill that role? The problem with Warmongers being infantry removal is the they have to be better than Warspears who already have two attacks each (thanks to assault). Warmongers are going to have to be AMAZING at infantry removal for them to be distinctive enough to pick over Warspears for versatility alone (not to mention spears having armor cracking as well as Set Defense). Maybe if they had Overtake... Or Bulldoze... And whatever you call that ability that gives you +2" when charging living warrior models.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 19:54:08 GMT
With the overwhelming support for a defensive-style animus as well as a few recurring suggestions, I think it's time for this poll to be locked. Any suggestions for the next discussion? My personal thoughts are on one of the following: Zuriel Soldier(Scythean?) Lessers(as a group or individually?) We should pick models that are available (or likely to be available to) the Ogrun CID. Is it time to get a poll for the Blighted Ogrun? Both units clearly need work. At the very minimum, they should not be the same cost since we all know which unit is better...
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 18:09:59 GMT
The problem with paying for Eyeless Sight and to a lesser degree Pathfinder is they are a solution to niche problem. I'll use Eyeless Sight for now as my example: On a melee beast, it makes us immune to Blind (deliverable by... 3 models in the entire game?) and lets us charge through clouds walls. The latter is awesome when dealing with certain casters, utterly useless when playing against most. Most armies would simply include a solo or one or two beasts to help cover their bases on this regard. We have no such option. We pay for it on EVERY beast. Meaning the majority of the time, we are overpaying, because we have no option not to. Which basically means (to me) that when factoring in Eyeless Sight to beast cost in Legion, it should be a very small factor, if at all. Otherwise you we are forced to pay for it every time, yet can rarely count on a time to even use it. Solutions to this problem could be giving us ways to force situations where it would be useful: persistent cloud walls we can place, for example. I agree eyeless sight is the most niche of the 3 I listed (PF, Spiny, eyeless).. but fog banks are also a relevant terrain piece that can give you as major board advantage. Additionally, if you take something like Bog Trog mist speaker to solve the ES problem... that’s 4 pts, which applied across ay 4 beasts means you are paying a 1 pt tax to give your army eyeless? It starts to even out. PF is hardly a niche problem. And Spiny is very strong. As I said, I agree Carni is overcosted, but I think only by 1 pt maybe 2 tops. I actually do consider PF a niche problem. I primarily play Skorne now, so I no longer play with PF on everything, and I miss PF access roughly 1 out of 4 games. Not because there's no terrain on our tables, but because Skorne has access to SOME Pathfinder, so they can put those pieces where they need them to deal with the terrain. But if i paid for it on every beast, 3/4 of my beasts per game just never even get a chance to use it. Don't forget the getting Pathfinder on a single model costs literally nothing in many games thanks to SR17 objectives. But we are paying for it every time. And yes, fog banks are a thing... But they usually aren't that big (4" diameter) and need to be placed somewhere on the field where I can charge through them or hide behind them... And even then, that ONE bank is not enough for my entire battlegroup to utilize yet I pay for it on the whole thing, instead of just one Earthborn or Aradus. Spiny Growth WOULD be strong if the Carni didn't have attrocious defenses to begin with. 11/20 is decent, but to give it that I have to spend 2 fury. I do think the CiD change to it will help significantly for this. And you have to remember, the only two themes you can run the Carny in is Oracles (where you run so many beasts every fury counts) and Ogrun (who are a joke right now so this is moot). In a perfect world, if I had to re-price the Carny, I would make him 16.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 16:40:42 GMT
The problem with expensive models is they have to justify their cost. A carnivean is 19pts and it doesn't even get mat 7 or rat 5. that's crazy. without a free charge all you get is four PS18s and two PS16s, a spray that only hits khador heavies without boosting and a fury tax to have the armor statline that a 19pt heavy should have. vs infantry, it has to deal with a crippling rat of 4, and the fact it has to deal great damage to justify its cost. Vs heavies it has to deal with the fact its output is very low for cost and it'll never piece trade effectively. In the end of the day if you're sending a Carnivean at two Juggernauts or Two Crusaders, or at a siege animantarax (2pts cheaper baby) its just outclassed. I can name a better cost/output ratio in every single other faction bar none. Legion beasts are definitely overcosted To be fair to the Carni, although I agree 19 pts is too high. It has native pathfinder. It has eyeless sight (relevant for charging through cloud walls and blind immunity). And it has a great animus (especially once its cost 1). Sometimes these things get overlooked because we are so used to everything having PF/Eyeless that we start taking it for granted. The problem with paying for Eyeless Sight and to a lesser degree Pathfinder is they are a solution to niche problem. I'll use Eyeless Sight for now as my example: On a melee beast, it makes us immune to Blind (deliverable by... 3 models in the entire game?) and lets us charge through clouds walls. The latter is awesome when dealing with certain casters, utterly useless when playing against most. Most armies would simply include a solo or one or two beasts to help cover their bases on this regard. We have no such option. We pay for it on EVERY beast. Meaning the majority of the time, we are overpaying, because we have no option not to. Which basically means (to me) that when factoring in Eyeless Sight to beast cost in Legion, it should be a very small factor, if at all. Otherwise you we are forced to pay for it every time, yet can rarely count on a time to even use it. Solutions to this problem could be giving us ways to force situations where it would be useful: persistent cloud walls we can place, for example.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 16:24:48 GMT
Of course we would. Having used both, they are great. Heck, Savages are great with the right caster (looking at you, Naaresh). But the I think the complaint taken from the perspective of "they over-neutered animi" is valid. Legion or maybe Trolls got hit the hardest, but it's a problem across all of Hordes. There are tons and tons of animi which will literally do nothing and even more that should never be used based on fury cost. Had they kept fury management the way it was (aka extremely effective) this might not have been a big deal. But they didn't, so now our beasts are in a position of "I'm paying for this corner case option that even if I did use it, it's probably a mistake to do so". Of all the problems with Hordes at the moment, this isn't particularly high on my list, but it does seem like a wasted opportunity in terms of "fun" and "depth of play". Anyway, yes, like the rest of Hordes, too many of our animi are non-targetable, over costed, and too niche. I get the targeting change, but at that point they should probably make them worth the fury cost. You certainly don't see Focus imprints (the closest equivalent) this useless in Warmachine. I think the difference is that the imprints exist specifically to make the jack do something they designed it for. In hordes, EVERY beast needs to have an animus by design, and I feel in some cases they just put whatever, only making sure it would not break the game. The protector is probably an example of that, where the rule sounds like it would fit him, but playing it you soon realize that it does not work with his useless POW 12 weapon. Good point, I'm sure you're right, that's why we have this problem. But we still have this problem. I think part of the problem was they didn't want to inflate the cost of the beast. I think the better way to handle that would be to make the cost of the animus suit it's usefulness, so that a cost increase to the beast isn't necessary.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 5, 2017 15:52:14 GMT
Would love to have snacking (RFP) and future sight accesss in Legion. Those are hardly meh. Of course we would. Having used both, they are great. Heck, Savages are great with the right caster (looking at you, Naaresh). But the I think the complaint taken from the perspective of "they over-neutered animi" is valid. Legion or maybe Trolls got hit the hardest, but it's a problem across all of Hordes. There are tons and tons of animi which will literally do nothing and even more that should never be used based on fury cost. Had they kept fury management the way it was (aka extremely effective) this might not have been a big deal. But they didn't, so now our beasts are in a position of "I'm paying for this corner case option that even if I did use it, it's probably a mistake to do so". Of all the problems with Hordes at the moment, this isn't particularly high on my list, but it does seem like a wasted opportunity in terms of "fun" and "depth of play". Anyway, yes, like the rest of Hordes, too many of our animi are non-targetable, over costed, and too niche. I get the targeting change, but at that point they should probably make them worth the fury cost. You certainly don't see Focus imprints (the closest equivalent) this useless in Warmachine.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 22:21:59 GMT
Well, the Cryx CID made Black Ogrun just dirt cheap and extremely offensively strong. Boarding party got "toned down" to MAT 8 POW 15 under gang with SPD 6 and DEF 13. At 11 points. But unlike Warmongers, they also got a nice gun with drag and CRA. If based on that I could assume that warmonger woudl have to be even cheaper (!) or even stronger than them in melee ... well, then we are in for a treat! If we are not cheaper or better at least in melee than them, I will point that out to no end in CID. We have to pay the non-Cryx tax.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 19:50:24 GMT
The big problem with Abby's feat is it is too easily ignored and we haven't got enough (any) "bruiser" beasts that we can take advantage of it. But they still want counterplay to the feat, so it isn't just a "win button" (because only Cryx gets those). But what if the feat was changed to:
At the end of any model/units activation, you may heal all damage to a Warbeast in your battlegroup. A Warbeast may only heal once as a result of this effect. This effect lasts for one round.
This would keep the healing aspect, but it would make enemies really need to pause to consider whether their activation can kill your beast in one go. It would also allow you to more readily risk free strikes, giving it some offensive play as well.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 19:40:22 GMT
As it stands right now, the Blightbringer has most/all of its synergy with our infantry. Yet to up until very recently, it was only allowed in Oracles (we call this irony). But I really don't see why some of its breath effects couldn't be reworked to include beasts as well?
Perhaps one of the effects only works best on beasts, another effect works best on infantry, another effect just debuffs enemies.
Or really... What if the aura buffs were just limited to small/medium based models? Would it really be too strong if Nephilim, or Blight Wasps, or Lessers got the +2s? This would give the Blightbringer a REAL place in the few themes it's allowed in.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 19:24:39 GMT
If we are looking for new and good animus... I would like a targetable animus that says: Target gains Sacrificial Pawn [this model].
It would be distinctive, genuinely give it a strong place is in protecting things, and has the hilarious bonus of situations where your Warlock starts taking hits for your beasts.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 19:16:50 GMT
True, I forgot that warmongers inexplicably lost a point of mat in mk3. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up for warmongers. PP clearly must want them to be garbage for how much they deliberatly screw them up. I'm certainly not. I don't think the CID will go anywhere. I can hope, but eh. I'm not so much "hopeful" as I am intrigued. Most of Legion fluff and mechanics are centered around speed, surgical strikes, fragility, etc... Which just in no way is like Ogrun, the Blightbringer, or the Carni chassis (thanks to Mk3 "improvements"). With themes basically being new factions, they can get away from this and make them "bricky"... But with their steadfast refusal to bump heavy infantry to 8 boxes, how will this theme be bricky? So I want to see how they attempt this. I don't have positive expectations, because... Well because frankly I've got no reason to. But ignoring the effectiveness, I'm curious to see what they are going to try. In my most salty moments, I want to see just how badly they can mess it up, but when I think of a "force of mutated savages coming down from the snowy mountains/North to loot and pillage", it reminds me of Warhammer Chaos and that gives me some hope.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 4, 2017 14:16:57 GMT
Abby1 needs a lot of work. She is a beast caster, but only has the ability to boost 1-2 beasts at a time. She has no ability to support infantry at all. Even her feat typically only affects 1-2 beasts tops.
If we want to keep the feat fluff similar, I would say keep it as is and then add the line: Friendly faction war beasts in her control area cannot be affected by Grievous Wounds and heal 1d6 immediately after an attack from an enemy model against them is resolved.
This would give it the they staying power it was supposed to have. It also allows it to work better with Beast Mistresses.
I'd also give her whatever that ability was called that increases the field allowance for Forsaken.
Lastly I would change her upkeep spell that gives Hyper-Aggressive to have it also give Aggressive. This way she would remain a beast caster but still (at least partially) support more than 1-2 models in her army.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 1, 2017 19:20:14 GMT
I've been thinking. Although points drops would be nice, I think there is a benefit to having a faction with cool expensive beasts that cost lots of points and not any midcost heavy beatstick beasts. If all the factions has 10 point heavies with PS16 attacks, it would be a bit dull right? We might as well all play Khador.
Our beasts might not be too expensive. Just expensive. There is obvious design you can read into the costings.
Harrier 3 Shredder/Stinger 4
Afflictior 6 Raek/Bloodseer/Naga 8 Soldier 9 Teraph/Protector 10 Bolt Thrower 11
Neraph 12 Seraph 14 Anglius 17 Sythean 18 Ravagore/Carnivian 19
I think that's the mix we have ignoring characters. (18/19/21/24)
Looking at Chassis bases:
Lessers are 13/13 with 13 boxes.
Afflcitors 13/15 with 18 boxes Raeks 15/14 with 18 boxes
Bloodseer/Protector 12/18 with 22 boxes Soldier/Bolter 13/16 with 22 boxes
Terpah 13/16 with 20 boxes
Anglius 14/17 with 25 boxes Serpah/Nerpah 14/16 with 28 boxes
Sythean/Rav/Carn 11/18 with 30 boxes.
Its a pretty great mix of stuff.
But some key characteristics seem to be:
13-16 points - no melee beasts. Many beasts have melee and shooting (Ravagore, Carnivian, Angelius, Terpah even the bolt thrower has quick work.) Most of these have a good gun (ravagore, Teraph) or good melee (Angelius.Carnivian) and the other thing is a bit of a sideline. Nothing wrong with the sideline multiple initials for melee, or a Boostable handcannon. or a 10" power 14 spray. Everything has pathfinder or flys, SPD5 (6) is slow, Sped 6 (6) is normal and Spd7 (5) is fast.
Strong Shooting beasts: Ravagore. Teraph Bolt Thrower Naga Seraph
Strong Melee Beasts Carnivian Angelius Sythean Raek Shredder Nerpah
Strong Support Beasts Seraph Naga Bloodseer
Beasts without a strong Roll. Protector Soldier Afflictor Harrier Stinger
The Harrier I've often used as a points filler. The Stinger I've used with great effect from the Spawning vessel. They are problaby not too bad to honest.
The Protector and the Solider I struggle with. I've ran them in numbers in CoTD, but they just don't seem to put out enough damage or be compelling choices to play. Similarly the Afflictors, I've ran a few times, and they are good as a Sideboard piece - where you swop them in to your list if there is stuff they are going to be able to chew through. On paper 1 less arm and 4 less boxes than a solider looks great for 2/3rd the price. But Soldiers are removed really quite easily (less so in CoTD)
I do occasionally run the protector, and I like my soliders, but neither model seems very good on the table. With particular casters that give out global buffs (Kryssa +3 str, Vayl2 may be Abby2, Thags2) they benefit from those buffs very nicely, but even so don't get that much work done for me.
Anyway I think we have a strong and varied stable of beasts, that are OK value. I think them being expensive is good character, and should be made up for by them being fast, flexible and powerful. In the cases where they seem too expensive, I think its because they are not powerful or flexible enough rather than them being too expensive. So the Protector should be PS14. The solider should have a better animus. The afflcitor... I don't know about the afflcitor or the lesser. If some of the stuff I've labelled as strong isn't good enough or costs too many points - then I think may be first we should look to see if they should be improved. May be Anglius should be Mat7. May be the Carnivian Chassis should get more boxes.
While I think your subject is intentionally misleading, I think I see what you are getting at here: Our price points basically say "We are an elite beast faction. We should be out numbered, but our superior stats should make up the difference." This approach has character and panache and fits thematically the fluff. So we shouldn't ever expect to have any "cheap, spammable beatstick heavies", because it is not in theme and would make us too similar to other factions. The problem is the stats of any of our beasts meant to crack armor are terrible for what they cost. They simply can't kill the standard enemy heavies, all of whom cost less, especially given our own fragility. That's not even accounting for the cost of the support we need to run them. The answer, I think, is to simply boost their stats. That way we remain out numbered but become the glass cannon we are supposed to be. It keeps the theme we are supposed to have while making us actually good at what we are envisioned to be good at.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Nov 28, 2017 21:35:42 GMT
Would it be so weird if Nephilim Soldier got Brutal Charge as a targetable animus? Would you pay 1 fury on one beast to give another beast +2 damage on its charge attack?
It feels Legion to me because it requires some finesse to apply (charging) and it synergizes well with our high natural threat ranges. I like it on the soldier because it fits in all our themes, it helps mitigates our damage potential, and it gives a reason to run this beast outside of Children. Plus it would work reasonably on warrior models. Call it Inertia or something like that to emphasize the mobile nature required to deliver it.
|
|