|
Post by Aegis on Sept 6, 2017 10:26:22 GMT
I think they are good changes.
Sure, SoT remains at the bottom of Cygnar ladder, but at least now its playable.
Its not much a thing of having "more" solos, but to be able to take the same number of solos with less gun mages.
If the battlegroup or mercenaries handle the main damage/contesting work, gun mages are fine as support units.
Practically, now the reason to play SoT is to get access to nice solos like GMCA, Riflemans and Falk, other than the only unit-wide true sight we have in Cygnar and a fair share of magic weapons.
Probably you would still chose other themes for a pair, but at least now there is some niche utility into playing SoT
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Sept 6, 2017 22:34:58 GMT
I think they are good changes. Sure, SoT remains at the bottom of Cygnar ladder, but at least now its playable. Its not much a thing of having "more" solos, but to be able to take the same number of solos with less gun mages. If the battlegroup or mercenaries handle the main damage/contesting work, gun mages are fine as support units. Practically, now the reason to play SoT is to get access to nice solos like GMCA, Riflemans and Falk, other than the only unit-wide true sight we have in Cygnar and a fair share of magic weapons. Probably you would still chose other themes for a pair, but at least now there is some niche utility into playing SoT I agree completely. It gives you more room for Jacks or Mercs. Personally I'm happy with where it is now. Highly powerful? Not on your life. Auto loss at list creation? Definitely not. I can't see you wanting more than 1 unit of ATGM's and Blazers unless you're doing something really weird. But that's 2 great free solos and a whole lot of empty room in the list. You want 5 Jacks? Go for it! Bring in the Devil Dogs? Sure, whatever. It's very open now
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Sept 7, 2017 1:07:46 GMT
I think they are good changes. Sure, SoT remains at the bottom of Cygnar ladder, but at least now its playable. Its not much a thing of having "more" solos, but to be able to take the same number of solos with less gun mages. If the battlegroup or mercenaries handle the main damage/contesting work, gun mages are fine as support units. Practically, now the reason to play SoT is to get access to nice solos like GMCA, Riflemans and Falk, other than the only unit-wide true sight we have in Cygnar and a fair share of magic weapons. Probably you would still chose other themes for a pair, but at least now there is some niche utility into playing SoT I agree completely. It gives you more room for Jacks or Mercs. Personally I'm happy with where it is now. Highly powerful? Not on your life. Auto loss at list creation? Definitely not. I can't see you wanting more than 1 unit of ATGM's and Blazers unless you're doing something really weird. But that's 2 great free solos and a whole lot of empty room in the list. You want 5 Jacks? Go for it! Bring in the Devil Dogs? Sure, whatever. It's very open now Pp did fix the gun mage theme by allowing you to take the least amount of gun mages...
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Sept 7, 2017 2:06:13 GMT
Pp did fix the gun mage theme by allowing you to take the least amount of gun mages... Ironic, but probably the best solution until gunmages go through a proper release and cid cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Sept 7, 2017 2:50:05 GMT
Well, Id disagree that it's the gun mages at fault. It say it's a flawed core concept. There are like 5 different Gun Mage related stuff and they tend to do all the exact same thing.
Until there is "Gun mage Bazookiod" and "Gun mage Melee Combateer" this theme is gonna suck unless you make the Gun Mages ridiculously OP.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Sept 7, 2017 3:57:56 GMT
Well, Id disagree that it's the gun mages at fault. It say it's a flawed core concept. There are like 5 different Gun Mage related stuff and they tend to do all the exact same thing. Until there is "Gun mage Bazookiod" and "Gun mage Melee Combateer" this theme is gonna suck unless you make the Gun Mages ridiculously OP. I totally agree. The main problem of SoT was exactly that. Gun Mages can be a good support unit, but an army of support units doesn't make sense. To make it work, you have to either buff the support unit to the point it is no longer a support unit (so changing its design intention), or to allow big quantities of non-support models to be included in the list. The original SoT had the big flaw of not doing anything of that. It just forced you to make an army of support models, without giving them any significant buff to make them do real work. The last iteration is far better. I didn't tought that they would consider lowering the ratio for free points to 15 (I tought that they would be scared of the 5 free solos possibility), but they did it and it can work now. Now you can take a low/reasonable amount of gun mages and still get enough free solos to not be behind on points against other themes, and you can fill the rest with models actually intended to be able to do damage/hold zones. The theme still has a few issues that I would like to be addressed, and for sure it isn't the first one I would look for when making a tournament pair, but I think now it can at least somehow work and be interesting.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Sept 7, 2017 4:23:53 GMT
^ Yep.
So, looking at it, is there a reason not to play Sloan in SoT? You substitute ATGMs for Trenchers. You still get Reinholdt as the 1 merc solo, you can take Grenadiers and Trencher Mechanics or Chargers and a marshaled Cyclone. Strangeways won't fit without alterations to the standard list, but magic guns shouldn't be a problem with the Gun Mages. This seems pretty good....
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Sept 7, 2017 4:37:11 GMT
The theme itself is in a much better spot than it was at the CID start. Depending on the caster, I can bring 30-45 points of gun mages for the solos, and use a battlegroup for heavy lifting. The inclusion of the Squire, and it being a free solo option, helps a bunch. I would still like to see Rangers as a unit option (even not counting towards free points), but I am mostly content.
We moved in the right direction, which makes me happy.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Sept 7, 2017 6:57:15 GMT
I'm curious if the flat Merc allowance in themes is getting through.
Khadr Steam & steel seems to indicate so unless Orrik is specifically allowed.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Sept 7, 2017 9:13:31 GMT
I'm curious if the flat Merc allowance in themes is getting through. Khadr Steam & steel seems to indicate so unless Orrik is specifically allowed. They said that Merc/Minion inclusion will be done on a theme by theme basis, rather than blanket rule to all themes, how widespread that inclusion will be? only PP knows!
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Sept 7, 2017 21:18:33 GMT
I am hoping for it in Heavy Metal. My sword knights need Rhupert
|
|
|
Post by darkangeldentist on Sept 7, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
I am hoping for it in Heavy Metal. My sword knights need Rhupert For what, concealment and/or tough? Runewood can give them pathfinder. (Not to mention veteran leader and an extra +2 to hit on the charge.) What more could you want in a free solo?
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Sept 7, 2017 22:06:41 GMT
So I can give my opponent fits with 20-24 Def 13/15 ARM 17 tough no-KD dudes of course!
2012 was a good year.
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Sept 11, 2017 17:04:41 GMT
I'm curious if the flat Merc allowance in themes is getting through. Khadr Steam & steel seems to indicate so unless Orrik is specifically allowed. Yeah, I wish the themes were more restrictive. I don't know why you'd have a theme then make it....well, not a theme. To me it seems PP didn't realize the ball of wax they'd opened up with all the free points, and now they're trying to walk it back without really walking it back. Now you've got models balanced against other models and themes balanced against themes, and the big balancing factor in the game is points but PP kinda threw that out the window by giving people all these free points. So now they're saying "Well, you get a theme but you also get mercs." Which eats into the free points and feels less thematic so why even have a theme? I totally get it if they're saying: "Okay, this theme is all about an army that fights Warjacks. So you get Sword Knights and Devil Dogs and Gorman and Hutchuck." Basically, a bunch of models that can fight against warjacks. And that's the theme of the army. Instead their themes are based on a type of model which, to me, is very simplistic (though not necessarily incorrect). And theme benefits are based on gameplay; not thematic, story driven elements. PP didn't look at it and say "What if Storm Knights get concealment while in your casters' control area? This big glowing ball of electrically driven a-holes marching across the battlefield, the voltaic surge making them more difficult to see" or "What if Houseguard units get the Tough ability?" or "What if marshalled Mercenary jacks can be allocated to?" Instead the benefits are "free points" and sometimes a very powerful secondary ability ("MY ARMY OF GRIFFONS GETS SHIELD GUARD!") and sometimes a pretty inconsequential secondary ability ("My solos get 3" reposition...yay?") So this really creates big problems. The word "theme" to me means "thematic". But the themes are really "competitive" list design choices. The more "Narrative-type" players are not interested in themes and loathe them.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Sept 11, 2017 21:04:36 GMT
I'm curious if the flat Merc allowance in themes is getting through. Khadr Steam & steel seems to indicate so unless Orrik is specifically allowed. Yeah, I wish the themes were more restrictive. I don't know why you'd have a theme then make it....well, not a theme. To me it seems PP didn't realize the ball of wax they'd opened up with all the free points, and now they're trying to walk it back without really walking it back. Now you've got models balanced against other models and themes balanced against themes, and the big balancing factor in the game is points but PP kinda threw that out the window by giving people all these free points. So now they're saying "Well, you get a theme but you also get mercs." Which eats into the free points and feels less thematic so why even have a theme? I totally get it if they're saying: "Okay, this theme is all about an army that fights Warjacks. So you get Sword Knights and Devil Dogs and Gorman and Hutchuck." Basically, a bunch of models that can fight against warjacks. And that's the theme of the army. Instead their themes are based on a type of model which, to me, is very simplistic (though not necessarily incorrect). And theme benefits are based on gameplay; not thematic, story driven elements. PP didn't look at it and say "What if Storm Knights get concealment while in your casters' control area? This big glowing ball of electrically driven a-holes marching across the battlefield, the voltaic surge making them more difficult to see" or "What if Houseguard units get the Tough ability?" or "What if marshalled Mercenary jacks can be allocated to?" Instead the benefits are "free points" and sometimes a very powerful secondary ability ("MY ARMY OF GRIFFONS GETS SHIELD GUARD!") and sometimes a pretty inconsequential secondary ability ("My solos get 3" reposition...yay?") So this really creates big problems. The word "theme" to me means "thematic". But the themes are really "competitive" list design choices. The more "Narrative-type" players are not interested in themes and loathe them. They aren't walking back free points, they are just allowing people to use the merc models they own.
|
|