demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 1, 2017 1:47:44 GMT
I do agree that the Vanquisher needs to be altered. We have enough units that can clear the board of weakened units. As our most offensively geared heavy, he should pack the suggestive punch. At his current price, he's more expensive than the Scourge of Heresy (also has a 2 inch thresher) and almost as expensive as the Hand of Judgment. When you consider that he costs as much as a crusader and a dervish combined it kind of puts things into better perspective, even more so when you think about how a redeemer and a dervish is just 1 more point than what he's worth. Basically, as it stands, his only use is if you need a ranged jack that can get kicked around a little once melee engagement begins. His cost needs to drop 2 with an additional 1 power OR get rid of thresher and up his power by 2.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 1, 2017 4:37:50 GMT
I have another silly suggestion for the bastions to run by you guys. What if.... we give the unit inhuman resolve instead of sanguine bond So your literally only allowed to kill one at a time otherwise they come back? Thats the beauty of it. You're wrong. Because the healing happens when a model is destroyed. And when they get disabled they remain disabled and never go to destroyed because of inhuman resolve. So they remain like that until you destroy something near them and then they heal. It makes it so that if you jam them in front the enemy has problems cause the physical models remain in the way until maintenance phase.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:48:34 GMT
Yeah. You'd have to kill something other than a Bastion to heal them. I don't think Inhuman Resolve would be all that great on them in practice. Otherwise multiple KE Seneschals would have been a thing long ago.
This would just mean your opponent focuses on dropping all 5 bastions for one turn, lets them die, and then kills otherstuff on the next turn. Inhuman Resolve is better the less of it you have oddly enough.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 1, 2017 4:51:37 GMT
An entire turn spent killing one unit has its advantages. I also feel like it might turn into an order of operations nightmare for them.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:56:32 GMT
Yeah, but in this case it's a 16 point unit. and if they gained this ability I guarantee they would get more expensive. At that point its totally worth it, so the ability doesn't actually gain you much. Unlike the Seneschal where he's 1 dude stopping you from attacking anything else.
|
|
draycos
Junior Strategist
Posts: 167
|
Post by draycos on Aug 1, 2017 12:43:03 GMT
Re-post as I am curious to hear what you think of this (and it went completely ignored in the other thread.)
What if Sanguine Bond (or replacement rule) read: "If this model takes damage during your opponent's turn you can instead choose to deal 2 points of damage to both this model and one additional model in this unit within 3 (4?) inches."
This maxes out at 4 total damage per attack. To kill a bastion (assuming you attack the same one) would take three attacks. If you attacked a new Bastion (in the unit) with 6 separate attacks that is 24 damage. Depending on positioning you could distribute this to leave each bastion on 1 health. It would take another 6 normal attacks to kill the rest of the unit (as you are not choosing to spread it around). This rule would leave them weak to fire, acid and blast/aoe. Thresher would also give these guys a bad time.
If focused on shooting just one guy in the middle you could probably kill 2-3 or so with 3-4 attacks.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 15:30:07 GMT
Well Sanguine Bond just got changed in the troll CID. Its back to it's Mk2 self. So it's likely not going to change again.
Really at this point Sanguine Bond isn't the issue anymore. Its the combination of 5 hit boxes+poor defensive stats+Sanguine Bond which was designed around 8 hit point models. Change two of those things and Bastions are good again.
So really they need to go back to 8 hit boxes and gain a point of armor and they're solid. They still don't make much sense in terms of fluff or their actual equipment but asking for Bastions and Cinerators to switch roles is a little too much to ask most likely.
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 1, 2017 17:25:26 GMT
I will have to say that PP really underestimates heavy infantry, and the fact that they are not carrying shields is a big downer. However, full armored infantry was unstoppable until they came up against elephants. Even then, when they switched formation, heavy infantry was able to limit casualties enough to immediately mount an offensive. Even heavy cavalry had issues with shield wall and pikes. Immune to most blast damage, only close range bolts could get through their shields, old fashion bullets can't penetrate bronze shields. Even though they were easy to hit, they had a good 3 to 400 lbs of metal and leather protecting their bodies... yet light cavalry has the same armor value in this game, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 17:33:43 GMT
More like overestimates heavy infantry. They think 5 hit points on arm16 is so much more durable than arm16 with 1 hit point.
They really really need to put heavy infantry back at 8 hit points baseline.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Aug 1, 2017 19:10:25 GMT
More like overestimates heavy infantry. They think 5 hit points on arm16 is so much more durable than arm16 with 1 hit point. They really really need to put heavy infantry back at 8 hit points baseline. Or just raise their base armor. Also 5 wounds arm 16 is a lot more survivable than arm 16 one wound ... more is always more.
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 1, 2017 20:09:58 GMT
poison auto boxes 1 box arm anything x.x; However, heavy infantry is different from medium based infantry x.O;
heavy infantry is an IRL war tactic.
medium based infantry is a model that is based off heavy infantry.
When I mention heavy infantry I mean the IRL type. It's like comparing SWAT to your average police force; PP still thinks they are wearing the same armor just because they have a bullet proof vest x.x. (SWAT have access to shields, helmets, and a better form of a bullet proof vest that is more like body armor with 2 inch thick steal plates protecting your vitals and that doesn't even include the bomb squad suits)
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 20:11:12 GMT
Its really not. You have to consider that usually one wound models get over killed by multiple points of damage. A basic infantry model's attack is usually p+s 10-11.
A charging p+s11 attack does an average of 5.5 damage to arm16. So basically 50:50 for a super cheap infantry model to oneshot a bastion 3-4 times his point cost. Those extra 4 hit points aren't buying you much.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Aug 1, 2017 20:17:40 GMT
Its really not. You have to consider that usually one wound models get over killed by multiple points of damage. A basic infantry model's attack is usually p+s 10-11. A charging p+s11 attack does an average of 5.5 damage to arm16. So basically 50:50 for a super cheap infantry model to oneshot a bastion 3-4 times his point cost. Those extra 4 hit points aren't buying you much. "But you can't compare a unit's cost to its function..." Is what they said to me when I made that same argument. Edit: Here's the quote: "Regardless of how bad or good bastions are, that's corrupt reasoning. Units have different costs and are effective under different circumstances." and "Not saying they might not need a buff, its just cost=/=survivability directly."
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Aug 1, 2017 20:34:07 GMT
"Regardless of how bad or good bastions are, that's corrupt reasoning. Units have different costs and are effective under different circumstances." and "Not saying they might not need a buff, its just cost=/=survivability directly." But his reasoning is different. "My thing should survive because its more expensive" is not good reasoning "My thing should survive because its a defensive option and even a non offencive option can kill it" is good reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Aug 1, 2017 21:20:21 GMT
"Regardless of how bad or good bastions are, that's corrupt reasoning. Units have different costs and are effective under different circumstances." and "Not saying they might not need a buff, its just cost=/=survivability directly." But his reasoning is different. "My thing should survive because its more expensive" is not good reasoning "My thing should survive because its a defensive option and even a non offencive option can kill it" is good reasoning. Putting words in his mouth? He literally did not mention anything about Bastions being a "defensive option." He says they're being one-hit-killed by something 1/3 to 1/4 its cost. And that's just being pedantic anyway. We all know that, despite IRL common sense, Bastions are the "defensive option" when it comes to Exemplars. If we're going to have a discussion about a model with someone, I'd assume there is at least a modicum of understanding regarding the model's abilities. And that's not meant to be a slight against you, Rowdy, I'm just making a statement.
|
|