|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 12, 2017 2:38:47 GMT
Actually, it's the other way around -- Baldur's feat shuts down Pathfinder, leaving a melee Harkevich list just kind of sitting there on feat turn doing nothing. And I just mathed it; a unit of bloodtrackers with Prey and Stone Skin have about a 50-50 chance of one-rounding a Khador heavy with their javelins on non-feat turn. No, you're right, I'm wrong. And a 50-50 chance of 1-rounding a Marauder, which costs less than the unit, and leaves them in retaliation range of the rest of the army is...not great, in terms of being the best anti-marauder tech baldur can muster, and it assumes that once you've declared your prey target, the opponent leaves it at the front of the army, rather than keeping it back in the second wave or using it as Harkevich's bodyguard-jack
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 12, 2017 2:36:49 GMT
That being said, I challenge you to find an argument that you would deem 'objective' in the context of WMH balance. True. So you list your own experience and I list mine. What else do I do? You demand that armor cracking beats Armor. Can't I demand the opposite "I believe that the best armor should defeat the armor cracking no matter what!". Not that I am I'm just saying its just a binary demand. Harkevitch is very difficult to out attrition. There. He's not that hard to trick because of low model count and lack of counter tricks. You say no, I say yes, and what else can happen? Well, if you believed that the best armor should always beat the best armor cracking, you'd be wrong. Armor skew is a list type, armor cracking is a list focus. A list that excels in armor cracking almost always has other weaknesses, particularly if it is literally 'the best.' Again, it's not that Binary - there are certainly casters that threaten Harkevich, and (for instance) I'm not that scared of him with my Ret, because I can run Rahn, or Kaelyssa, or Ossyan. And Circle definitely CAN win against Harkevich, particularly if the Khador player plays poorly. However, in SR2017 it is very easy for a competent Khador player to force the game into an attrition grindfest, and given that some factions can't compete in that game at all, I believe it to be problematic.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 12, 2017 2:20:57 GMT
You're completely right about Baldur. I haven't played him in a while, I'll admit.
That being said, I challenge you to find an argument that you would deem 'objective' in the context of WMH balance. There are no independent studies on the subject, no experiments, nothing that I would deem as 'objective' data. Tournament records are not objective data, particularly pertaining to SR2017. Too many variables, too little comprehensive information on the pairing, too low sample size.
Almost all argumentation on WMH balance is experiential - it's why PP's CID focuses on battle reports, not just analysis of tournament rankings. In the absence of objective data, experiential and opinion-based arguments are relevant.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 12, 2017 1:51:35 GMT
See previous for my replies to your suggestions. I'm not saying Circle CAN'T do it, I'm saying Circle does not have a good drop into it, and with the way SR2017 is pushing the game towards attrition-fests in the centre of the table, it's a problem if any faction can put out an attrition caster that another faction can't deal with productively. "What is difficult for you in Circle" "The Following" "No it isn't" Whatever Oncoming storm. Nothing says you HAVE to Attrition. Some of your nonlinearity was gutted, but so was Khador's ability to make our Infantry Defense 17+. Il say that this is purely a personal playstyle of yours. I have not experienced the 2017 thing much, but it seems to enable riskier assassination taking just as much as it enables attrition. (Edit: You will sao no it doesn't so OK) Actually, no. I agree with you that it encourages risky assassinations, but I think that's a product of the fact that some matchups are not able to win through attrition, and scenario is now an outgrowth of attrition, which leaves assassination as the only viable option. As to my earlier response, are you going to continue to attack me, or are you actually going to engage with the arguments I presented? I've played most of those matchups from the Circle end, and they're not good matchups for Circle. I have played Circle in numerous flavors into Harkevich. The main thing which made him weaker in Mk3 was that SR2016 tended to force him to spread out somewhat or risk losing on scenario, which allowed less attrition-focused factions to take apart his army without engaging a Marauder deathball in the center of the table. Now that the risk of losing on scenario is (mostly) gone, Harkevich can pretty much do just that. Incidentally, that's why I give little credence to the tournament results which were put up earlier. You are right that Circle is not supposed to be an attrition faction. But SR2017 is a system which strongly encourages attrition-based play. In that context, any faction having the ability to field an army which can out-attrition another faction's best counter is going to be a problem, and Circle and Legion are almost certain to get the worst end of it.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 12, 2017 1:30:31 GMT
I don't run 10 marauders, but while Hark tends to be my circle-drop, some of the things I fear when I play into Circle include: 1. Tricksy movement things, especially tricksy things that may allow a warbeast to get close to Harkevich Circle does not have a ton of tricksy movement things anymore. Our threat ranges these days are depressingly linear, with very few exceptions. I don't know how much of your experience with Circle is Mk2 vs. Mk3, but circle got a lot of their tricks gutted in the transition to Mk3. 2. Kaya3 Not a solution - I assume you're referring to synergy Kaya3 here, which requires 3 beasts to build synergy. When beasts are as expensive as they are in circle, it's really not a viable option. Furthermore, she only tops out at damage +3, vs. +2 for any other caster I would consider 'attrition oriented.' She might become viable into Harkevich IF beasts dropped in points cost. 3. Baldur1, especially with a unit of bloodtrackers This just confuses me. Harkevich more or less ignores Baldur's feat, due to Mobility and a lack of shooting. Aside from the feat, Baldur offers stone skin (a nice buff, but no more than any other caster can offer) and some personal assassination threat if your opponent leaves their caster within 14" of Baldur and Baldur is in a forest. Bloodtrackers are a decent unit, but they're terrible into Harkevich - even with prey, and stone skin, they barely scuff the paint on marauders, and preying the caster only rarely works. 4. Loki. Harkevich does not like people dragging his brick-o-jacks apart Loki is a good beast, and one of the few appropriately costed Circle beasts. He also has an 8" range on his hook, which means once he's hooked something, he WILL get retaliated against, and he's not much tougher than an average warpwolf. At best, you're trading a 19 point heavy for a 10 point heavy, and quite possibly something else too (since Loki doesn't kill marauders on his own.) 5. Marauders losing a ton of effectiveness the moment you knock out a single arm Unless you have mechanics, but...point taken (ish.) If you're complaining that you can't out-attrition the attrition caster in the heavy armour faction... well, that's like complaining that your screwdriver isn't as good at hammering in nails as my hammer. See previous for my replies to your suggestions. I'm not saying Circle CAN'T do it, I'm saying Circle does not have a good drop into it, and with the way SR2017 is pushing the game towards attrition-fests in the centre of the table, it's a problem if any faction can put out an attrition caster that another faction can't deal with productively.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 23:23:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 23:21:13 GMT
No, but it's a decent refutation to someone who's accusing you of making spurious arguments based solely on your own experience... You answered an accusation of one logical fallacy with another logical fallacy. Nothing decent about it. But your core argument is that in an armor cracking list, you should be able to play against a Specifically armor list? I mean I understand that but I think that's going about it the wrong way really. I mean if you send the best armor cracker against the best armor then all your left with is mediocrity. You're relying on a feat to cancel out another feat. But that's not necessarily the best way to play. You're just demanding you overpower your targets strengths with your own, as opposed to exploiting his weaknesses. You have a play report with pictures or the like so I can give suggestions? Would you stop butchering logic? That's not how fallacies (or argumentation) works. You initially accused me of relying overmuch on my own experience. I pointed to other players with the same experience. You claim that this is also a fallacy. You are (technically) correct, in that it's not scientific proof of anything, much less imbalance, but it's a strong indication that there is an issue to be investigated. I'm not claiming to have logically 'proven' imbalance, I'm claiming that the evidence supports an inference of imbalance. It's called a plurality of evidence, and I'm honestly uncertain as to what standard of evidence would serve as 'proof' in the sense you seem to be demanding it. If you're reading what I'm saying and concluding that I'm 'using a feat to cancel out a feat,' you have not been reading my posts - I specifically call out forcing him to feat defensively in order to avoid doing this, or using multi-wave tactics to do so. The game has 3 victory conditions - scenario, attrition, and assassination. With SR2017, PP is removing Scenario largely from consideration. If one faction is capable of putting down an army which another faction (any other faction) cannot defeat in attrition, it's a problem, because assassination is (1) not a reliable victory condition and (2) works best when there is attrition pressure, which forces the opponent to overexpose their caster to stay ahead on attrition. If attrition is a foregone conclusion, Harkevich doesn't need to come forward, can camp more focus, and otherwise make himself harder to kill, which reduces the viability of assassination-based win conditions. And yes, I wholly believe that the best armor list should lose to the best anti-armor list, all things being equal. The armor list, by skewing armor, gains a number of advantages, including virtual immunity to small arms fire and light infantry. This means that they will have a greater proportion of good matchups. Consequently, they should be counterbalanced by having a similar number of bad matchups. This is list-building and balance 101. If the best armor list has a good matchup against it's counter, why should anyone play anything else? It's the same problem the S-tier casters had in Mk2 - you had to drop the right things into them just to play the game, but they had decent game even into their worst matchups. It's intrinsically toxic for game balance. Finally, I'm not looking for personal advice. I know how to play, I win well over half my games, even with my Circle (not against Harkevich, admittedly) and I'm not looking for personal advice or a tutorial. What I would like to know, in more than vague generalities like 'weak to assassination' or 'don't run into his feat,' what Harkevich + 10 marauders actually has a problem with. I can think of a few casters that would give him a hard time, but not every faction has access to them. What do you fear, when playing Harkevich into Circle?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:45:52 GMT
Not just me, no. I'm hardly the first person to point out the issue of Marauder spam. "Argumentum ad populum" isn't necessarily a good argument either. I'm not refuting your arguments because I don't know your games. I don't know what lists you run. I don't know what you do or how you do it. I don't know how Harkevitch is Positioning his Jacks or attacks without having Jacks Ending up outside his control range, or how the Mechanics keep up, or the like. I certainly think Harkevitch is great, but I think really hyper amplifying a number of jacks he runs really leaves him vulnerable to attack. He does want infantry for a Flank, or otherwise your left spread dead eagle. I have had him Assassinated plenty of times even with him Hugging a Warjacks Busom of having Sac Pawns. No, but it's a decent refutation to someone who's accusing you of making spurious arguments based solely on your own experience... Harkevich positioning his jacks so as not to end up outside the control range is fairly simple. You're not playing Hordes, or anything, where your beasts have to remain within control at all times. The current scenarios in SR2017 do not encourage spreading out, allow harkevich to monopolize the centre of the board without worrying about losing on scenario (Spread the Net is the one exception to this) and let him play the game exactly the way he wants to. As I mentioned, Harkevich can be assassinated. But it's utter crap to look at a matchup which by all rights should be a favorable one (my anti-armor list against their armor) and know pretty much from the start that my only chance is going to be assassination. Anyways, I am not asking you to tell me how to play. you claim Harkevich has weaknesses, beyond assassination (not that 16/18, no knockdown, small based is particularly vulnerable to assassination.) Those weaknesses should translate to specific, applicable advice to playing against him, not just to me. If you have this advice, you should share it, because you're not actually supporting your own point in the context of this discussion - you're just denying (not even refuting) mine.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:23:52 GMT
AS good. Not better, AS GOOD. that's the key difference. Jack spam is a skew, just like infantry spam, which means that while it should wreck certain lists, it should also have counters, and it should be disadvantaged when it runs into those counters. If I run an infantry-spam list and I play someone running a bunch of Manticores, or a list running a bunch of infantry-clearing tech, I will be at a severe disadvantage. If someone chooses to run Harkevich +10 Marauders, they should be at a disadvantage if/when they run into a list designed to crack armor. They should NOT be able to play into the best armor-cracking a faction can offer and retain a 50-50 chance of winning, which is about where the list is at right now. There are some factions which cannot muster enough armor cracking to get through 10 Marauders before those marauders kill them. Circle can't do it. Legion can't do it (neither Carnivean-chassis nor Warpwolves can trade 2 for 1 with Marauders.) I've played into it with my Ret armor-cracking list (Elara2) and it struggles as well. That's a game balance problem, not an army flavor problem. Skew is part of the game, but a key feature of acceptable skew is the existence of counters within each faction. If factions don't have workable counters for a given skew, and the scenario forces that faction to play the game the skew wants to play, then that's a serious issue. So are we back to Harkevich and Marauders being too good, or are we going at jack spam in general again? That aside, the post I responded to didn't mention "as good". It mentioned "disadvantage". I take the post you were responding to to mean 'disadvantage' insofar as playing any kind of skew should expose some weaknesses in your list, which can be exploited. If your skew has a 70-30 matchup against lists that it wants to see, it should not have a 50-50 matchup against lists that supposedly counter it. I have no intrinsic issues with jack-heavy or jack-only lists, but they can't be so capable of attrition that they can walk into the best anti-armor lists another faction can field, and still win with relative ease. Harkevich + Marauders does this, so it is a problem. I have not experienced any other problematic spam lists where he problem is identifiably the jack, not just the caster, but I'm open to hearing suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:19:22 GMT
HOWEVER, there is a point where a model has too much durability and/or killing power for it's points cost. As defined by you? What you define as rediculous or not seems purely of your own personal experience. Of course I guess when you know your own faction you know its own weaknesses the best =P Not just me, no. I'm hardly the first person to point out the issue of Marauder spam. I would also think that the community's experience with MMM in Mk2 and Mad dogs of War at the beginning of Mk3, there would be a bit more self-reflection on the part of players playing box-spam lists that their lists may in fact be problematic. You are welcome to refute my points, as opposed to simply attacking me for relying on personal experience (I'm not, it's being used to support a broader argument) or for not playing your faction. As it stands, I've heard very little in terms of justification as to why the Marauder is NOT a problem. If you see 'weaknesses' to the list, please do share them. As it stands the totality of your argumentation has been the internet equivalent of standing there yelling ' NUH-UH!' every time someone point out an issue with Khador jacks(pam).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 21:56:36 GMT
In any case, from the numbers you've posted, an unbuffed marauder has a higher likelihood of one-rounding an unbuffed feral than the feral has of one-rounding it, despite costing 8 points less. That alone should demonstrate a problem with the relative costs of the models in question. Im a guy who never spams more than 5 jacks at a time, and actually plays Harkevitch with his Ranged Toolkit. I just hate Hyperbole As does this. Point cost generally does not correlate to damage dealt. It takes about 3 Furied (So about 3-1 Focus) Iron Fangs (Which might be a good unit, but In this case Im referring to something with about 13 POW, Not that much) to cripple a Maurader. For instance, an optimal Spriggain (3 Fury no need to charge) has 0% odds of killing a Maurader. So does a Freebooter. But a Freebooter goes up to 8% with a Bucaneer for Knockdown. I agree that the Maurader should loose siege weapon. Makes it too versatile for its points cost. But just generally measuring survivability or Damage directly by points is a fools errand. damage is not the only measure of the appropriateness of point cost, which is why I was talking about my experiences going up against Harkevich previously. HOWEVER, there is a point where a model has too much durability and/or killing power for it's points cost. The fact that there is not list in Circle or Ret which can reliably out-attrition Harkevich marauder spam is a problem. Siege weapon should go, it's so far beyond stupid that a 10 point model can trash colossals and BEs (not to mention huge based caster.) But that wouldn't solve the Marauder issue, because it is simply too cheap for the level of utility (combo smite is an absurdly powerful ability) killing power (Hordes would kill for a 10 point model with PS 16 initials) and durability (Arm 20 34 boxes.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 21:21:19 GMT
You are quite correct, and I omitted that the optimal order of operations involves two marauders, 1 of which knocks down the wolf with combo smite, the other of which kills it (5 attacks at straight dice, auto-hitting, kills it easily.) The Harkevich player will have 2-2.5 times as many marauders as I have warpwolves, so they almost always have the resources for it, even after absorbing an alpha (which I'm not guaranteed to get, as mobility-ed marauders have the same threat as a feral)
However, most of the time, the opponent doesn't need to kill the warpwolf - they can either combo-smite it out of melee range, and let it frenzy (if primalled) or combo-smite it out of control.
In any case, from the numbers you've posted, an unbuffed marauder has a higher likelihood of one-rounding an unbuffed feral than the feral has of one-rounding it, despite costing 8 points less. That alone should demonstrate a problem with the relative costs of the models in question.
But tell me, since you seem so intent on dismissing my experience fighting Harkevich + 10 marauders, about some of your experience losing on attrition to Circle or Legion with him? Since you seem to thing that things are so balanced.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 20:50:26 GMT
OK Im brought back because my Husbando Harkevitch Kun has been brought up: How do people play against him? Do they just rush all their armor cracking options at his feat turn and hope for the best? Seriously, you need to quit with the ad hominems and straw-manning. I am not brain-dead. I attempt to force Harkevich to feat defensively, or failing that, use a two-wave approach to draw out the feat. I find that regardless of my play, it nearly always comes down to assassination, as I don't have the ability to chew through that many boxes with the lists I am able to build. My Elara list works (when it works) because it has enough indirect threats that I can exploit poor positioning to get an Imperatus onto Harkevich, but if I try to fight the list head on, I simply lose, unless my opponent is playing incredibly poorly. It's worse with Circle, because they don't have same number of indirect threats, they rely on beasts for armor cracking (which marauders LOVE to see) and their armor crackers cost literally twice what a marauder costs, while being unable to kill two marauders, and being killable by a single marauder (if my opponent doesn't just ignore the primalled warpwolf and kill my other stuff.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 20:06:01 GMT
If they want to do so, then they should sacrifice precision for raw force. What I don't like is that lists that spam jacks can win on scenario. That shouldn't be possible. We can discuss what, if anything, should be done all day long. We've done so many, many times already. My point is that the game is designed the way it is, and how it's played is a direct consequence of that. You may not like it, but there's no reason why all-jack lists should be at a disadvantage vs more balanced lists as the game currently stands. AS good. Not better, AS GOOD. that's the key difference. Jack spam is a skew, just like infantry spam, which means that while it should wreck certain lists, it should also have counters, and it should be disadvantaged when it runs into those counters. If I run an infantry-spam list and I play someone running a bunch of Manticores, or a list running a bunch of infantry-clearing tech, I will be at a severe disadvantage. If someone chooses to run Harkevich +10 Marauders, they should be at a disadvantage if/when they run into a list designed to crack armor. They should NOT be able to play into the best armor-cracking a faction can offer and retain a 50-50 chance of winning, which is about where the list is at right now. There are some factions which cannot muster enough armor cracking to get through 10 Marauders before those marauders kill them. Circle can't do it. Legion can't do it (neither Carnivean-chassis nor Warpwolves can trade 2 for 1 with Marauders.) I've played into it with my Ret armor-cracking list (Elara2) and it struggles as well. That's a game balance problem, not an army flavor problem. Skew is part of the game, but a key feature of acceptable skew is the existence of counters within each faction. If factions don't have workable counters for a given skew, and the scenario forces that faction to play the game the skew wants to play, then that's a serious issue.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 4:15:11 GMT
I'm not sure if you'd consider it problematic but Caine 3 jack spam is definitely causing me problems. I am currently playing Saeryn & Rhyas 2 solely because I feel they are the only Warlock I can run with a decent match up into him without relying on their being an obstruction on my side of the board to hide behind. I think cygnar gunlines can be problematic, but I think that the issue tends to lie more often with the Caster or the theme force than with the Jacks themselves. The Cygnar 'jackspam' I see tends not to use a ton of the same jack.
|
|