zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Aug 15, 2017 11:04:04 GMT
If we can't equate models via point values, why have point values?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 15, 2017 13:49:44 GMT
The problem isn't that you are generally losing a few free solos. By points, you are generally down an entire heavy warjack/beast. Show me a list that isn't better if it is the exact same but plus one warjack... It's definitely better - but will that one extra warjack win you the game? Nobody knows. Maybe the special combo that you can get outside of the theme force wins the game instead. We don't know. The point is just that one side having an extra jack doesn't mean an auto-win for that side. So playing out of theme is definitely a potential option still, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 15, 2017 14:52:45 GMT
The problem isn't that you are generally losing a few free solos. By points, you are generally down an entire heavy warjack/beast. Show me a list that isn't better if it is the exact same but plus one warjack... It's definitely better - but will that one extra warjack win you the game? Nobody knows. Maybe the special combo that you can get outside of the theme force wins the game instead. We don't know. The point is just that one side having an extra jack doesn't mean an auto-win for that side. So playing out of theme is definitely a potential option still, in my opinion. Just because my name sounds foreign doesn't mean I'll auto not get the job but it does make it harder for me. (Sorry for the real world example)
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Aug 15, 2017 15:37:08 GMT
It's definitely better - but will that one extra warjack win you the game? Nobody knows. Maybe the special combo that you can get outside of the theme force wins the game instead. We don't know. The point is just that one side having an extra jack doesn't mean an auto-win for that side. So playing out of theme is definitely a potential option still, in my opinion. I feel incredibly safe in saying that being up the value of a warjack or unit HELPS, though, especially if the benefit is applied to a list that needed absolutely no theme benefits to be good.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Aug 15, 2017 15:41:58 GMT
If we can't equate models via point values, why have point values? Indeed. If solos weren't being taken because they cost too much, the correct answer was to fix the cost of solos. But the genie's out the bottle now, and most solos might as well not have a point cost, because either you don't take them or get them for free.
|
|
|
Post by The Huntsman on Aug 15, 2017 17:55:21 GMT
If we can't equate models via point values, why have point values? Because point values do not directly correspond to any model's value in any particular game. There are too many factors that are out of your hands. If your free 6-point solo eats a random blast and dies, then saying "well it was free anyway" doesn't make any sense. Ten points of free solo is not strictly the same as ten points of free warjack. If that solo is critical to your list's strategy but forces you to take more points in warjacks than you normally would, then it's not exactly free. Some themes gel nicely that way; a lot of them force you into a narrower skew where the free models are just more linear combat pieces. The point of playing themes should be that it's close enough to what you would ordinarily play out of theme but with more interesting benefits. The value of the point bump gets exaggerated. That could be leftover Mk2 thinking where free points could add up to a 20% bonus - now it's a lot closer to 12%.
|
|