|
Post by Guest on Sept 5, 2017 9:55:42 GMT
What do you mean? That secretly this theme could be the best one in the game? But no one knows since no one really played it yet? I get the theory behind that (it has been seen before in mk2), but I somehow doubt that - our casters are no way near as good as Denny/Cryxs - Ghost Fleet recursion is way better than EF - guns are better than shield wall dudes - they have access to their great battle engine, we do not Would love to be wrong though. Having 2 different themes is way more fun in list pairing during tournaments etc. Just like Grymkin seems to be atm. And why does it work for Grymkin? They have better casters and units (guns, weapon masters, tough, casters with damage buffs)
|
|
|
Post by danfromchicago on Sept 5, 2017 16:50:46 GMT
What I mean is that is very easy to theorymachine yourself out of good options.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on Sept 5, 2017 19:37:50 GMT
I have a deployed game sitting at home that I look forward to playing tonight... I think it will be cool... BUT...
Those large base foundries... SO EASY to target behind even the largest of hordes.
|
|
|
Post by mikethefish on Sept 6, 2017 0:28:48 GMT
What do you mean? That secretly this theme could be the best one in the game? But no one knows since no one really played it yet? I get the theory behind that (it has been seen before in mk2), but I somehow doubt that Lots of things play differently on an actual game board than they do on paper. Sometimes they turn out better, and other times they turn out worse. At the very least, I believe that this theme will play far better into SR 2017 scenarios than Destruction Initiative will - making it a very reasonable choice for a tournament pair. Point being - tone down the arrogance just a scoach.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 6, 2017 13:19:58 GMT
my apologies
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on Sept 6, 2017 21:31:28 GMT
What do you mean? That secretly this theme could be the best one in the game? But no one knows since no one really played it yet? I get the theory behind that (it has been seen before in mk2), but I somehow doubt that Lots of things play differently on an actual game board than they do on paper. Sometimes they turn out better, and other times they turn out worse. At the very least, I believe that this theme will play far better into SR 2017 scenarios than Destruction Initiative will - making it a very reasonable choice for a tournament pair. I am stoked by the theme, but... With DI having SWARMS of solos and tons of big stompy robots for scoring and contesting, why do you think that this will be better at scenario? I hope it is great at scenario, just curious. P.S. I am afraid that I will perpetually clock myself playing the list I really want to play... conflictchamber.com/#cc201b_-0Sd2dndndBd4dEdEdEdEdydpdqdudsConvergence Army - 75 / 75 points [Theme] Clockwork Legions (Pre-release) !!! You are using a pre-release theme. (Aurora 1) Aurora, Numen of Aerogenesis [+29] - Conservator [12] - Conservator [12] - Corollary [6] - Diffuser [6] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Enigma Foundry [4] Eradicators (max) [15] Obstructors (min) [7] Obstructors (max) [11] Reciprocators (max) [18] Reductors (max) [13]
|
|
|
Post by perilsensitive on Sept 6, 2017 23:29:40 GMT
Having reliable infantry to score circle zones with is pretty crucial to scenario games.
|
|
|
Post by mikethefish on Sept 7, 2017 3:17:22 GMT
Lots of things play differently on an actual game board than they do on paper. Sometimes they turn out better, and other times they turn out worse. At the very least, I believe that this theme will play far better into SR 2017 scenarios than Destruction Initiative will - making it a very reasonable choice for a tournament pair. I am stoked by the theme, but... With DI having SWARMS of solos and tons of big stompy robots for scoring and contesting, why do you think that this will be better at scenario? I hope it is great at scenario, just curious. Have you played much SR 2017? That's not intended to be an insult, or challenge - it's an honest question You can get by with DI in several scenarios - and there are a few where it actually excells. But there are 2 or 3 scenarios that are SO live, with so many easily available scoring options, that you absolutely need infantry units in order to not simply just hemorage CP's to your opponent. With something like a Spread the Net (I think that is the title), it's not enough to simply contest with a few servitors - you need the scoring abilities that recursion-supported infantry can give you
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Sept 7, 2017 20:36:46 GMT
I am stoked by the theme, but... With DI having SWARMS of solos and tons of big stompy robots for scoring and contesting, why do you think that this will be better at scenario? I hope it is great at scenario, just curious. Have you played much SR 2017? That's not intended to be an insult, or challenge - it's an honest question You can get by with DI in several scenarios - and there are a few where it actually excells. But there are 2 or 3 scenarios that are SO live, with so many easily available scoring options, that you absolutely need infantry units in order to not simply just hemorage CP's to your opponent. With something like a Spread the Net (I think that is the title), it's not enough to simply contest with a few servitors - you need the scoring abilities that recursion-supported infantry can give you This is a big deal with SR17. There's a couple scenarios where the only models that can score are the caster and optifex directive. Standoff is the one I've had trouble with. It's the one with two circular, two rectangle, and two objectives. My opponents with more balanced armies can score potentially 4 points in one turn (technically 5, but I don't expect them to score in my rectangular zone). This means 1 good turn from them and they're way up on scenario. Bringing more than 1 3-man unit is a big deal. Now destruction initiative can kind of make do because you can keep contesting with servitors. But at that point you're trying to not lose on scenario instead of actively win at it.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on Sept 8, 2017 18:27:24 GMT
With Convergence, I have only played SR2017 about 5 times. All with DI and found that lucant contested fine. Definitely not outscoring by 5, but outlasting with a 2-3 point lead. (When I won. Also got shot off the table once by Ret... )
|
|
|
Post by danfromchicago on Sept 9, 2017 1:33:27 GMT
I find I need to take two units OptD in order to manage those scenarios with DI
|
|
|
Post by danfromchicago on Sept 11, 2017 19:47:10 GMT
Here's my current take on a Lucant list: conflictchamber.com/#cc201b_-0SdjdndBd4d9dEdEdEdDdcdcdydzdudsConvergence Army - 75 / 75 points [Theme] Clockwork Legions (Pre-release) !!! You are using a pre-release theme. (Lucant 1) Father Lucant, Divinity Architect [+28] - Conservator [12] - Corollary [6] - Diffuser [6] - Inverter [15] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Enigma Foundry [0(4)] Steelsoul Protector [4] Clockwork Angels [5] Clockwork Angels [5] Eradicators (max) [15] Optifex Directive [4] Reciprocators (max) [18] Reductors (max) [13] I think 3 Foundries and a Protector will end up being my standard loadout.
|
|
|
Post by javaman21011 on Sept 13, 2017 19:08:13 GMT
Why bring a protector? The Conservator already has Shield Guard.. unless you want her to charge with her Masterweapon?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 13, 2017 20:09:16 GMT
I don't get that either.
In this theme it's all about the recursion. The more the merrier. Even if you do not use all 4 every turn, the EF can still take flags, contest, repair other bots or run to better position.
Any news on this Theme from the CID? Any changes?
|
|
|
Post by claptrap on Sept 13, 2017 20:48:00 GMT
Why bring a protector? The Conservator already has Shield Guard.. unless you want her to charge with her Masterweapon? As well as the Corollary, Diffuser, and Inverter with Lucant.
|
|