|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 30, 2017 19:04:09 GMT
You're right in that we really need a hard gunline answer, and unfortunately, many of our gunline drops aren't good into armor (Wurmwood can, but he doesn't tend to run a list that uses a bunch of armor-cracking, but Baldur2 can't really.) Which leads to a very static pairing where you need a list that can handle gunlines, a seperate list that cracks armor, and then you just have to hope that one of those lists can play into control, supertough doomkitties, or any of the other boogeymen out there.
It's part of the reason why I'm taking an extended break from Circle. Too many casters don't fit neatly into either category, and most of the ones that do have fairly constrained list building.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 30, 2017 14:41:14 GMT
Given that you're playing Circle, you can usually assume they'll drop their armor skew into you, no matter what your lists are (unless for some reason you have no anti-infantry tech in either list) and that it will probably be a bad time for you regardless. Circle has the tools to easily clean up infantry spam, between casters that just remove huge chunks of infantry from the table, an infantry roster that almost exclusively is dedicated to removing infantry, and sentry stones/night witches etc. which easily fit into lists and which can go through infantry like a hot knife through butter. Conversely, Circle has a very hard time beating a dedicated armor skew, even if the list is teched specifically for armor cracking.
So no, I don't find list chicken to be problem, because jack spam is almost always the correct drop into Circle, which means you can play your anti-armor list with only minimal anti-infantry tech.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 19:21:23 GMT
I don't think that would go over well... I still think it could be brought in line with something like Skarre(s) feat(s). Either she can spend health to target or she can roll dice to give a set maximum of targets. With something like 2d3+3 you'd get 5-9 models. That's more than enough to shut down most all jacks/beast, and caster, in an army. When the complaint arises that it doesn't stop infantry; you can easily mitigate or outright kill them. You have e-leaps for heavens sake. Every feat/spell/model should not be an efficient tool to shut down every single thing on the table. Ya can't kill 60 drudges before they get to you. I don't see how that's relevant? You CAN kill 60 drudges before they get to you if you build your list to handle infantry - drudges aren't a fan of covering fire, for instance. Defensive strike for ranged weapons would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention it would very likely be overpowered. The main reason why it might not see play would be the fact that it would eat up the Cygnar player's clock incredibly effectively. Can you imagine gun mages with defensive strike on their guns? out of activation push/knockdown shots? Not to mention that with the sheer amount of ranged firepower such a list could put out out of activation, you wouldn't be able to move your caster forward AT ALL during feat turn, for fear of getting randomly assassinated by a barrage of defensive strikes. Also, saying that the feat would encourage players to take longer-ranged weapons than the cygnar player can bring is completely disingenuous, given that Cygnar is THE ranged faction. If Cygnar techs for range, there really isn't another faction that outranges them. I favor the random/limited models affected change to Haley's feat. Alternatively, make like Harbinger and reduce the range to command (and if it isn't already, make her CMD 10.) Wurmwood shows that it's not always a terrible change, she would (with good positioning) still be safe against melee elements, but she'd be much more vulnerable to being shot off the table on feat turn...as she should be on feat turn.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 18:22:17 GMT
Eiryss 1 or 2 is almost essential for any assassination-oriented army. I would try to cram her in there somewhere. Strike Force are nice for an assassination too. Otherwise it looks fine - more like a control/scenario army that has a decent assassination threat to keep the enemy honest. If you're not worried about making assassination your go-to play then you don't need to change anything. I would love to get Eiryss1 in there, period - she's generally great into the Hordes matchup, as in conjunction with Kaelyssa, you can really mess with Warbeast fury management. I'm not sure how I can rejig points in order to fit her in, though. I don't really like MHSF, especially not for assassination. Unless you have a reliable way of knocking the opponent down, or increasing their ability to hit, they're not that accurate (especially since the mini-feat no longer ignores many terrain benefits to Def) and when they hit, POW 10 isn't terrifying unless you have a way to boost it. I find they're much more useful for triggering backlash/putting damage on jacks. As to the list being more control oriented...I find that fully assassination oriented lists are easy to counter, if the opponent realizes what you're doing. Engineering an assassination is 10x harder when the opponent knows that it's your only win condition, so I'd rather have a list that can put out attrition or scenario pressure, and then take advantage of that pressure to assassinate if needed.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 8:45:43 GMT
It says nowhere in the Jack Marshall rules that character warjacks cannot be marshalled - which section are you seeing this in?
Also, War Room lets you do it - not definitive proof, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary...
It's not as crazy an idea as it sounds. The Scyir can be quite safe, between Iron Sentinel and only having to be within 9" of Impy at any point during it's activation, and the cost if he does die isn't super harsh - the jack becomes autonomous, not inert. With Imperatus, you can load him up with focus from Arcanists, then use him like a fire and forget missile if you get a shot at the caster. I personally don't much like it, because it makes Imperatus a non-entity after the first turn of engagement, but it's not an intrinsically stupid idea.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 6:53:23 GMT
Caine 2 was nerfed from a fun, good model into unusable garbage. I don't want that to happen to other casters. It's nice having nice things. You do realize that there is a middle ground between 'leave it in it's current, overtuned state' and 'nerf it into the ground,' right? CID has, at the very least, been fairly decent at finding a reasonable balance point for the models in question, and if Haley2 goes in, I would expect to see her get a modest nerf, rather than the nerf nuke from orbit that, say, Mad Dogs received. For the record, while I agree she's overtuned and miserable to play against, losing TK would be too much.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 5:30:01 GMT
Hmm, I was considering the following list for Kaelyssa, what do you think?
Kaelyssa - Banshee - Hydra
Dawnguard Sentinels + CA + Soulless Dawnguard Invictors + CA
Elara + Discordia
3x Arcanist
has a decent assassination threat on most squishy casters, doesn't fold to control. Not 100% sold on the Invictors, though.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 3:56:40 GMT
I don't think the point is power. I think the point is more legitimate play options. Yeah except that the person i was responding to was saying that circle can't be a "power faction" cause they have less legit play options. Like lack of play options is a problem but that poster was arguing something else. Their point was options = no power Except, of course, that if you read my post (and the post I was responding to,) I was specifically objecting to the idea that supposed 'power factions' like Circle (which I disagree is a power faction, but that's an entirely different story) aren't in need of CID. My post was absolutely about a lack of variety in terms of competitive options. If you check Druid's Dice's recent series ranking various Circle models, I largely agree with them. At this point, Circle doesn't have anything that's truly egregious. It has a few things that are above curve (and get taken to the exclusion of everything else,) and a truckload of absolute trash options, many of which were at least playable in Mk2. Cygnar also has some internal balance issues, but I maintain (and I'm also a Cygnar player, by the by) that Cygnar's issues are more to do with their good options eclipsing their other (generally okay) options. Storm Lances and Trenchers are such excellent multipurpose units that there's very little reason to reach for anything else most of the time. There are crap units (stormguard) but they're not as prevalent as some lead you to believe. Also, one thing that often gets overlooked when discussing Cygnar internal balance is the amazing variety of viable jacks the faction has - with a few exceptions, virtually everything is playable (the Reliant and Triumph notwithstanding.) Circle doesn't have anywhere near the stable of viable Warbeast options.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 0:59:02 GMT
I hope someone does this for every primecast so that I never have to listen to them ever again. I also hope that PP's vague hints at new terrain in the form of structures isn't really going to just be stationary battle engines GW fortifications-style. I was really hoping for urban combat with destructible terrain, not just yet another excuse for selling huge base models. Lolwut? Circle isn't even remotely overpowered, and has quite possibly the largest proportion of complete and utter crap in their model roster of any faction in the entire game. The whole faction crutches on 2 - 3 specific lists, comprised of a total of 15 different model choices between them, and they haven't had anything egregious since the Una2 nerf. There's your answer That was fast! Thanks for being utterly dismissive of my point. I'm very tired of Circle being called out as one of the 'power factions' when Mk3 mauled them and left them with nowhere near the options they had in Mk2. The vast majority of Circle options are inarguably crap, and while there are a few good options (some of which may indeed need nerfs) the faction as a whole needs serious help.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 0:31:52 GMT
At least we get a chance to work with it in CiD though. Here is hoping there is reasonable discussion. The cryx CiD has been going pretty well and I have been keeping an eye and nothing seems OP yet. That gives me hope for future mono faction CiD cycles The difference is that Cryx were, in general, considered a little behind on power, so they didn't attract many nerf doomcallers when they got some buffs. I'm curious about how CID will go now with Cygnar, considered by most between the top factions (Same would be for factions like Circle and Khador). The risk of wars between biased views (Cygnar players asking for buffs or denying potential balance problems and everyone else asking for nerfs or calling everything vaguely interesting as OP) is pretty high. Let's see how mature the community will be on this. Lolwut? Circle isn't even remotely overpowered, and has quite possibly the largest proportion of complete and utter crap in their model roster of any faction in the entire game. The whole faction crutches on 2 - 3 specific lists, comprised of a total of 15 different model choices between them, and they haven't had anything egregious since the Una2 nerf.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 22, 2017 22:14:39 GMT
I'm entering a tournament next week, planning to run Elara2 as my primary caster, with the following list (Defenders is still CID content and thus can't be used, nor can any of the new releases):
Elara2 -Imperatus -Phoenix -Chimera
Houseguard Halberdiers +CA Sentinels + CA
2 Arcanists 2 Mage Hunter Assassins Houseguard Thane
The lists cracks armor very effectively, and does decently against infantry swarms. However, it's susceptible to control-based lists, as well as lists packing dedicated infantry removal.
for pairings, I'm considering either Kaelyssa or Helynna in Forges of War, but I'm open to suggestions (either in terms of pairing advice or re: my Elara2 list.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 19, 2017 19:43:22 GMT
Well one argument I would make is that if you look at top tournament lists, Marauder spam isn't very popular, and it isn't in the most popular Khador lists. Here's my source (http://www.discountgamesinc.com/tournaments/tournaments/search/s:Khador) Going back to October I found 1 Marauder spam list (4 Marauders) and 1 Jack spam list that included 3 Marauders. I didn't go back further since that would be pre-Mad Dog nerf. I believe this means: 1) It's OP but winning high level players don't use it (unlikely) 2) It's OP but doesn't win at the high-level because it's a must-counter - high-level players have to devote a counter to the list (armor-cracking lists are a thing but they aren't just for Marauders so not a "Marauder OP" problem) 3) It's OP but not at the high-level (Tier 2+ players don't have the skill/lists to counter) 4) It's OP against your experience (either your lists are bad against it, or you/your meta hasn't figured it out) 5) It's OP against your faction but since it's bad in high-level play against other factions my data doesn't show it. I believe #3 or #4 are most likely because I have heard high-level players say they don't run it because it is very predictable to a good player. Would you be willing to entertain the fact that since this isn't an issue at the highest level it might be and issue with whatever level you are playing at, or an issue with your lists/skill? It could be your faction, but I will say that Circle has a decent showing in tournament placing (but maybe they didn't run into jack spam). I just want to help get to the root of the problem so we aren't screaming to nerf things that won't solve the problem for you (e.g. "I can beat Khador because of power up + jack spam" but the actual reason Khador is winning a lot is troop spam, for example, and we nerf jack spam and you still end up not having fun matchups). I would suggest it's more #5 that 3 or 4, but I'd expand it to 'good against Hordes factions in general, poor against WM factions.' WM factions can generally access better tools for dealing with jack spam than Hordes can - they can match it with their own spam, they can use hard-hitting weaponmasters (which most Hordes factions don't have access to) etc. There are downsides to the Harkevich list, for sure, but in SR2017 (for which there are no tournament results as yet) the dead nature of most of the scenarios ameliorates most of them. I have beaten the Harkevich list, in several different flavors. With hordes, the attrition game is typically not possible, so assassination is the way to do it, but Hordes factions (or at least Circle) lack ways to pressure the Harkevich list in order to get Harkevich to expose himself. A smart Harkevich player can largely hunker down, covering 2 of the 3 zones, and force the Circle player to start trading (unfavorably.) In SR 2016, the Circle player often had the tools to clear zones and score fast enough to reach 5 points, despite losing on attrition, but in SR 2017 that's no longer a viable possibility most of the time. I strongly suspect we'll see more of this kind of list when SR2017 hits.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 18, 2017 16:50:13 GMT
The sheer amount of theorymachine QQing over this change on the CID forums is astonishing. Seems like a lot of people are sad that the AFG is an impactful piece that can't be trivially shut down by a half-dozen things.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 18, 2017 9:04:05 GMT
I won on Scenario with SR2017 - Standoff, 6-0, playing Issyria into Kallus2. I'd pretty much won on attrition already, though, and he had very few units, and was thus unable to score circle zones effectively.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 17, 2017 5:20:11 GMT
I'm confused, are you the circle player, or are you playing against circle?
|
|