isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jun 3, 2017 11:20:10 GMT
Actually haley 1 was changed due to her interactions with the hurricane as per a pagani Facebook post. I will see if I can dredge it up. It was not that it was unbeatable or even overpowered it was just unbearably awful to play against. Sure. Still, I can't forgive the crumby job they did. The spd debuff in her cmd is ridiculous. And dropping her wjp was just salt in the wound. I'll concede that she may have needed to change. But there are so many better ways they could have done a better job. It was hurricane, grenadiers and TB that broke her. The grenadiers have a -2 speed grenade, haley had her -2 spd and hurricane could knockdown amd slam. So a unit of grenadiers plus a hurricane on feat turn could -4 spd and knockdown 4 heavies...
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 3, 2017 13:21:14 GMT
Sure. Still, I can't forgive the crumby job they did. The spd debuff in her cmd is ridiculous. And dropping her wjp was just salt in the wound. I'll concede that she may have needed to change. But there are so many better ways they could have done a better job. It was hurricane, grenadiers and TB that broke her. The grenadiers have a -2 speed grenade, haley had her -2 spd and hurricane could knockdown amd slam. So a unit of grenadiers plus a hurricane on feat turn could -4 spd and knockdown 4 heavies... I don't care WHY they nerfed her. I care about HOW they nerfed her. It was the laziest hack job possible. They could have dropped the spd debuff entirely and make tb a 3 cost. Cool. The spd debuff in it will just never come up anyway. Or they could have made tb an offensive upkeep, 3 cost, model/unit, -2def and spd. Or drop tb and give her quicken. And many, many other options that would have been interesting redesigns instead of straight nerfs. And why did they drop her wjp? Was that because of the Hurricane? Or the grenadiers? Nope, just because they felt like kicking her while she was down. My 2 biggest disappointments in mk3 have been the Haley1 nerf, and the Sons of the Tempest theme (look, I'm a little bit on topic ).
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Jun 7, 2017 2:13:59 GMT
Friendly warning that I'm taking the hordes!Karchev posts to a new thread.
And guys, watch yourselves. I don't want to remove posts because people start insulting each other.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Jun 8, 2017 3:16:45 GMT
Actually I totally agree with Phoenix on Haley1...
It was the most dishearthning thing I have seen from when I started playing warmachine and was what almost turned to zero my trust on the dev team (that was pretty high before).
I can totally see why the -2 SPD was problematic (far from broken, but definitedly problematic), expecially on the light of wanting to buff infantry and Cryx that was the trend of that moment.
That said, changing something and ruining it carelessly are two different things, and the job was so clearly poorly done that I still have many troumbles finding out how they could have tested it and not noticed right away.
I have seen many models being bashed down by nerfs, even overnerfs, but at least they remained into the realm of the sense (I mean, some models were bashed into being useless, but at least their rule had some sort of coherence between themselves).
Reducing the range of a SPD debuff to 8" from the caster (where the caster is still going to get charged and assassinated) was and still is unexplainable to me. I think it will take a lot from the dev team to ever regain my trust after seeing such a thing coming out of their internal playtest, and their lack of will to reconsider the change or even truly explain it (with motivations like "But with 2 Centurions in front of her maybe she survives...") only made it worse.
|
|
|
Post by souleater on Jun 8, 2017 6:59:57 GMT
I am scratching my head over the theme lists to be honest.
I thought they did away with the theme mists because some provided too great a benefit - lower point costs on some models, some special rules being more powerful than others.
Looking at the lists we have had so far it seems as if we have pretty much the same problem - one side can fight with more points, special rules don't always seem balanced.
I am genuinely curious to get the poi ions of more experienced players.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Jun 8, 2017 10:28:41 GMT
Now that the Trencher CID is out and we can see a bit more of the scope of Theme Forces I'll comment.
It looks like theme forces are designed to be sub-factions rather than just a alternative method of play. I dislike free points and I dislike the that there is now Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners. To me this says that if there's a unit you can't use, eventually it will get a different version with a keyword stapled on.
Want to play Iron Fangs but also Doom Reavers? Don't worry, here come Doom Reaver Pikemen!
Half the reason theme forces are somewhat balanced is that you're limited in your choices, but if the theme force books slap an extra word onto an existing unit to cover up the gaps in your choices then why bother? Why not just make a CA that gives the existing unit change keywords and make the unit better? Why release a whole new unit? What I mean is why did they make a Trencher Long Gunner unit when they could just give them a CA that makes them a Trencher unit.
Oh yeah, money.
I also dislike the approach of releasing them one at a time. It makes things feel very lopsided. Given how slow PP is at releases I feel bad for whichever faction is at the tail end of the release cycle (probably Skorne or Protectorate).
I'm glad Cygnar is getting the support it badly needs first though.
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Jun 8, 2017 12:00:18 GMT
Now that the Trencher CID is out and we can see a bit more of the scope of Theme Forces I'll comment. It looks like theme forces are designed to be sub-factions rather than just a alternative method of play. I dislike free points and I dislike the that there is now Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners. To me this says that if there's a unit you can't use, eventually it will get a different version with a keyword stapled on. Want to play Iron Fangs but also Doom Reavers? Don't worry, here come Doom Reaver Pikemen! Half the reason theme forces are somewhat balanced is that you're limited in your choices, but if the theme force books slap an extra word onto an existing unit to cover up the gaps in your choices then why bother? Why not just make a CA that gives the existing unit change keywords and make the unit better? Why release a whole new unit? What I mean is why did they make a Trencher Long Gunner unit when they could just give them a CA that makes them a Trencher unit. Oh yeah, money. I also dislike the approach of releasing them one at a time. It makes things feel very lopsided. Given how slow PP is at releases I feel bad for whichever faction is at the tail end of the release cycle (probably Skorne or Protectorate). I'm glad Cygnar is getting the support it badly needs first though. I've seen this argument about Long Gunner vs Trencher Long Gunner, but I don't understand it. Would people be making this argument if they had been called Trencher Big Gunners? They're two different units that do similar things. There's a lot of those in every faction. These two just also happen to be named similarly.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 8, 2017 12:28:09 GMT
Now that the Trencher CID is out and we can see a bit more of the scope of Theme Forces I'll comment. It looks like theme forces are designed to be sub-factions rather than just a alternative method of play. I dislike free points and I dislike the that there is now Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners. To me this says that if there's a unit you can't use, eventually it will get a different version with a keyword stapled on. Want to play Iron Fangs but also Doom Reavers? Don't worry, here come Doom Reaver Pikemen! Half the reason theme forces are somewhat balanced is that you're limited in your choices, but if the theme force books slap an extra word onto an existing unit to cover up the gaps in your choices then why bother? Why not just make a CA that gives the existing unit change keywords and make the unit better? Why release a whole new unit? What I mean is why did they make a Trencher Long Gunner unit when they could just give them a CA that makes them a Trencher unit. Oh yeah, money. I also dislike the approach of releasing them one at a time. It makes things feel very lopsided. Given how slow PP is at releases I feel bad for whichever faction is at the tail end of the release cycle (probably Skorne or Protectorate). I'm glad Cygnar is getting the support it badly needs first though. I've seen this argument about Long Gunner vs Trencher Long Gunner, but I don't understand it. Would people be making this argument if they had been called Trencher Big Gunners? They're two different units that do similar things. There's a lot of those in every faction. These two just also happen to be named similarly. It's not just the long gunner. They're even making a trencher journeymany caster. (because they totally need 3) So there is bits out there that you can jump to conclusions from. So I can see exactly where that line of thinking comes from and where it's going. But we don't know for certain if this will be the case all over. Cygnar seem to get the most toys. But when you have all the toys already, what happens? you start getting duplicates of said toys. Now, I will refrain from going off the rails about how disgusted I am about nearly everything involved with this CID. But there's nothing I or any customer can do about it... just get to wait.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 8, 2017 12:28:35 GMT
Now that the Trencher CID is out and we can see a bit more of the scope of Theme Forces I'll comment. It looks like theme forces are designed to be sub-factions rather than just a alternative method of play. I dislike free points and I dislike the that there is now Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners. To me this says that if there's a unit you can't use, eventually it will get a different version with a keyword stapled on. Want to play Iron Fangs but also Doom Reavers? Don't worry, here come Doom Reaver Pikemen! Half the reason theme forces are somewhat balanced is that you're limited in your choices, but if the theme force books slap an extra word onto an existing unit to cover up the gaps in your choices then why bother? Why not just make a CA that gives the existing unit change keywords and make the unit better? Why release a whole new unit? What I mean is why did they make a Trencher Long Gunner unit when they could just give them a CA that makes them a Trencher unit. Oh yeah, money. I also dislike the approach of releasing them one at a time. It makes things feel very lopsided. Given how slow PP is at releases I feel bad for whichever faction is at the tail end of the release cycle (probably Skorne or Protectorate). I'm glad Cygnar is getting the support it badly needs first though. I've seen this argument about Long Gunner vs Trencher Long Gunner, but I don't understand it. Would people be making this argument if they had been called Trencher Big Gunners? They're two different units that do similar things. There's a lot of those in every faction. These two just also happen to be named similarly. It's mainly because Cygnar players have wanted longgunners to become a playable unit for a long time. They've been overcosted for a good while. Now, we get a second unit of them that is better, and will always be preferable to them (because they have better stats, can be taken in theme, and are only a bit more pricey). So, for Cygnar players who own long gunners, they feel cheated. Now they will have to buy more models to play a unit they alreqdy owned.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 8, 2017 12:30:11 GMT
Question: do you like this game? Do you enjoy playing Warmachine with other people? Do you enjoy occasionally getting new models? Well I've got news for you, PP needs to make money to keep the lights on, and needs to keep the lights on so that their designers can sculpt those models. I mean come on dude. To another point you make, that they will just fill in gaps with other models, we don't actually know that. The themes (not the lists) of the models run strongly, and they will add models that are in line with the theme. Trencher long gunners make sense. Doom reaver iron fangs does not. Trencher storm blades doesn't make sense. I actually like the mini faction idea, I think it will help them keep producing models and push faction bloat back a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jun 8, 2017 12:34:00 GMT
Now that the Trencher CID is out and we can see a bit more of the scope of Theme Forces I'll comment. It looks like theme forces are designed to be sub-factions rather than just a alternative method of play. I dislike free points and I dislike the that there is now Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners. To me this says that if there's a unit you can't use, eventually it will get a different version with a keyword stapled on. Want to play Iron Fangs but also Doom Reavers? Don't worry, here come Doom Reaver Pikemen! Half the reason theme forces are somewhat balanced is that you're limited in your choices, but if the theme force books slap an extra word onto an existing unit to cover up the gaps in your choices then why bother? Why not just make a CA that gives the existing unit change keywords and make the unit better? Why release a whole new unit? What I mean is why did they make a Trencher Long Gunner unit when they could just give them a CA that makes them a Trencher unit. Oh yeah, money. I also dislike the approach of releasing them one at a time. It makes things feel very lopsided. Given how slow PP is at releases I feel bad for whichever faction is at the tail end of the release cycle (probably Skorne or Protectorate). I'm glad Cygnar is getting the support it badly needs first though. I've seen this argument about Long Gunner vs Trencher Long Gunner, but I don't understand it. Would people be making this argument if they had been called Trencher Big Gunners? They're two different units that do similar things. There's a lot of those in every faction. These two just also happen to be named similarly. They are basically the same. For 1/2 points you get +1 DEF, +1 ARM and +1 CMD, plus Practice Manoeuvres. The Trencher version completely overshadows their regular counterparts for a measly point investment. The thing where it gets interesting is the difference in attachments, but definitely not the difference in base unit.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 8, 2017 12:38:10 GMT
Question: do you like this game? Do you enjoy playing Warmachine with other people? Do you enjoy occasionally getting new models? Well I've got news for you, PP needs to make money to keep the lights on, and needs to keep the lights on so that their designers can sculpt those models. I mean come on dude. To another point you make, that they will just fill in gaps with other models, we don't actually know that. The themes (not the lists) of the models run strongly, and they will add models that are in line with the theme. Trencher long gunners make sense. Doom reaver iron fangs does not. Trencher storm blades doesn't make sense. I actually like the mini faction idea, I think it will help them keep producing models and push faction bloat back a bit. Needing to sell models obvious. But creating a new model that is scarily similar to an existing one and thus nearly invalidating the original seems underhanded. I'd rather they charge a small entry fee for tournaments to "keep the lights on" than screwing players over every time they release an errata or new model/theme.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Jun 8, 2017 12:52:11 GMT
Question: do you like this game? Do you enjoy playing Warmachine with other people? Do you enjoy occasionally getting new models? Well I've got news for you, PP needs to make money to keep the lights on, and needs to keep the lights on so that their designers can sculpt those models. I mean come on dude. To another point you make, that they will just fill in gaps with other models, we don't actually know that. The themes (not the lists) of the models run strongly, and they will add models that are in line with the theme. Trencher long gunners make sense. Doom reaver iron fangs does not. Trencher storm blades doesn't make sense. I actually like the mini faction idea, I think it will help them keep producing models and push faction bloat back a bit. Needing to sell models obvious. But creating a new model that is scarily similar to an existing one and thus nearly invalidating the original seems underhanded. This. I have no problem with PP making NEW models. NEW models are great. I love NEW models. Making Long Gunners 2.0 isn't making NEW models, it's invalidating old models so they you have to buy the new ones. As I said, they could have released a CA that turns Long Gunners into Trenchers and put Long Gunners into the CID, but they chose to make a whole new, better unit than the existing Long Gunners AND a CA. Save
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 8, 2017 13:04:39 GMT
I played the new trencher long gunners tonight. They felt amazing to play, they rocked and kept me in a rough matchup. Regular long gunners don't feel like they do. 11/10, would play again.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 8, 2017 13:17:04 GMT
I played the new trencher long gunners tonight. They felt amazing to play, they rocked and kept me in a rough matchup. Regular long gunners don't feel like they do. 11/10, would play again. Who did you play them with? Do they need snipe as badly as their cousins? They seem pretty survivable and shooty.
|
|