|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 23:23:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 23:47:02 GMT
You are (technically) correct, in that it's not scientific proof of anything Then we are in agreement then  Larger social trends are worthy of investigation but are worthy to do so in detail, not with just generalities, which are the only ones your using to prop up your arguments. How is attrition a victory condition? Your only required to kill the Caster to win the game. All things are not equal. You could have the most amazing infantry ever that would perfectly armor crack even 100 Warjacks. So then the warcaster casts a spell completely unrelated to the Warjacks toughness or your level of armor cracking and denies your infantry movement actions. Well problems arise because you see things very binarily, and I don't spam with 10 Mauraders, so I doubt you would care about any of my suggestions. One thing I don't fear counter attrition. Even from Khador. Even from Similar Feats from Khador from the same Jacks. I fear Tricksy things. Things that can place my jacks or ignore models OR things that do slams or pushes. So the Satyrs and your birdos and the teleportation stone things. Even knowing their capabilities that does force me to play more defensively than I would like, allowing my opponent to control the engagements. |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389 
|
Post by crimsyn on May 12, 2017 0:49:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 12, 2017 0:57:46 GMT
So Amon Jack Spam is burning it up, and so is Kharchev (With Balanced Jack lists), but KHADORAN Jack spam gets all the hate. Typical. |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 12, 2017 1:01:09 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
2. Kaya3
3. Baldur1, especially with a unit of bloodtrackers
4. Loki. Harkevich does not like people dragging his brick-o-jacks apart
5. Marauders losing a ton of effectiveness the moment you knock out a single arm
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.
|
|
|
|
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 Rowdy Dragon on May 12, 2017 1:41:25 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) |
|
|
|
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 Rowdy Dragon on May 12, 2017 2:06:07 GMT
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? They're your own personal experiences. You said that Mobility ignores Baldur 1s Feat so Im not sure what im supposed to say there. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to ARGUE. That I'm not scared of your mobility options because you said so? I don't know enough about 2017 to know how much attrition it requires, but I know that "models killed" isn't even a secondary win condition, so your not required to kill anything you don't need in order to kill the caster, which I have found that Circle Excels at. If it really forces it then sucks, and Il agree the scenario needs to be changed. We disagree at some fundamental principles, and thats about it. Your arguments are: "Well its bad, well I, well I, well I" Or "Well some other people say so too". If I and 100 people I liked said 2+2=7 thats not really an argument. And Im not even saying that your potentially wrong, I'm just not seeing objective arguments. |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 12, 2017 2:30:28 GMT
Attrition oriented lists are definitely going to get a buff if SR 2017 ends up anything like how it was during CID testing. As long as you're ahead on attrition there's not enough scenario pressure to justify putting your caster at risk and the Kill Box doesn't force your caster far enough forward to matter against all but the most extreme assassination threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 12, 2017 2:30:50 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? |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 12, 2017 2:33:14 GMT
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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 2:38:47 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 |
|
