|
Post by macdaddy on Sept 6, 2017 18:23:00 GMT
I have to agree with rowdy here, bombardiers are lacking. Arm 16 with 8 wounds and relatively short range make them pretty bad. They suffer from wanting to do lots of things well but end up doing everything poorly.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Sept 6, 2017 18:49:31 GMT
My true annoyance came from the mountain of rules they are handing out to the bombadiers. I've played them more than I played shocktroopers. I liked them as they were. No they are going to be ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with the theme benefits. Pathfinder, quick work, dual shot minifeat, another gun for CRA, crit-shred. In a perfect turn, pathfinder charge, hit, crit, charge damage, kill, shred melee, kill, quickwork, kill... all x 6 models. Yes most of the stupidity in the insider comes from butcher's spells and feat ("I'm so mad I make guns shoot harder"). I get that Butcher is THE yard stick for damage output. But FFS... Not to get involved in your "discussion" with Rowdy Dragon, but your perfect turn example is off, and a bit of an overstatement. First, the officer does not out and out give Pathfinder to the unit, so there would not be any charge move with Pathfinder. With Clear Cut the officer does give Pathfinder if the unit makes a full advance (walk movement), so they could not make a charge with Pathfinder. The general thinking of how Clear Cut would look like is this: To my knowledge, the only way the Bombardiers as a unit could make a charge with Pathfinder is with the help of Saxon Orrick. (Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.) Second, Critical Shred does not allow you to make a second melee attack if you kill your melee target with the first attack. This officer CA, as proposed, will not make the Bombardiers combat monsters that will slay all those around them. As they are now, the Bombardiers are ~OK~ but I think they needed the little bit of help the proposed increase to 12" range would give. If you read everything in perspective, the mountain of rules this CA gives out are rather mutually exclusive and are designed to allow the Bombardiers to fire more often over the course of the game. lormahordes.freeforums.net/post/46786/threadScroll to the top to see the CA put all together.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Sept 6, 2017 19:44:10 GMT
I just see your opinion as to nerf like 90% of the games stuff so the 10% of the stuff that doesn't see much play be "Balanced" Against it Well maybe if you would read to understand rather than read to reply you would notice I've never said or implied anything remotely close to that. I can't have a conversation if all you can do is construe my intent, jump to conclusions, and take everything as an offense. Macdaddy - I never said they were perfect. Arm 16 8 boxes is far better than most. They still compare in range to most other ranged heavy infantry (Ogrun walk 5 throw 7 or charge 8 throw 7. so 12-15". Bombadiers are 14. I don't see how this is crazy different). I've used them successfully. If they were as bad as they are being made out to be I would have the same experiences and think they were garbage like others. That's blatantly not the case. Do they need some help? Yes all heavy infantry need some help. I do not see giving them more triggered attacks/damage a way to get a model with supposedly "no good targets" as a way of fixing the unit. They can give them ranged killing spree for all I care. But if that doesn't solve getting shot to death on the walk into range then you have not done anything to help the unit.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Sept 6, 2017 20:53:26 GMT
I just see your opinion as to nerf like 90% of the games stuff so the 10% of the stuff that doesn't see much play be "Balanced" Against it Well maybe if you would read to understand rather than read to reply you would notice I've never said or implied anything remotely close to that. I can't have a conversation if all you can do is construe my intent, jump to conclusions, and take everything as an offense You said they dont have a place because cheap warjacks, too good shooting and weaponmaster infantry is edging them out. So essentially require changing all that other stuff instead of changing them. Id say they just kinda fail to do enough against anything in specific.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Sept 7, 2017 7:22:37 GMT
I just see your opinion as to nerf like 90% of the games stuff so the 10% of the stuff that doesn't see much play be "Balanced" Against it Well maybe if you would read to understand rather than read to reply you would notice I've never said or implied anything remotely close to that. I can't have a conversation if all you can do is construe my intent, jump to conclusions, and take everything as an offense. Macdaddy - I never said they were perfect. Arm 16 8 boxes is far better than most. They still compare in range to most other ranged heavy infantry (Ogrun walk 5 throw 7 or charge 8 throw 7. so 12-15". Bombadiers are 14. I don't see how this is crazy different). I've used them successfully. If they were as bad as they are being made out to be I would have the same experiences and think they were garbage like others. That's blatantly not the case. Do they need some help? Yes all heavy infantry need some help. I do not see giving them more triggered attacks/damage a way to get a model with supposedly "no good targets" as a way of fixing the unit. They can give them ranged killing spree for all I care. But if that doesn't solve getting shot to death on the walk into range then you have not done anything to help the unit. I'm glad you were able to use them successfully, but every meta isn't of the same difficulty of play. How many successful tournament lists, not even national or state level, just successful tournament lists as a whole have you seen them in. For me its 0. I even saw AK's make a successful list in mk2.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Sept 7, 2017 9:04:25 GMT
You said they dont have a place because cheap warjacks, too good shooting and weaponmaster infantry is edging them out. So essentially require changing all that other stuff instead of changing them. Id say they just kinda fail to do enough against anything in specific. Heavy infantry with guns just have problems in general. They typically can't kill what they can hit, can't hit what they can kill, don't have the volume of fire to clear infantry spam, and aren't that resilient.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 11, 2017 8:46:53 GMT
Why is very theme in these insiders just straight up better than Secret Masters... Like come on PP can you stop rubbing it in that you don't know how to make circle interesting and effective... Honestly the problem with Circle is not something which can be fixed by theme benefits - in strict terms, the bonuses of secret masters aren't actually that bad (though there's a lack of mainline units that will hopefully be sorted with whatever new releases it gets.) The big problem with Secret Masters is that druids are shit. Mistriders are shit. So to get the bonuses, you need to take shit units. The only good models that count for points are the fulcrum (which can't be the only thing in your list) and the solos (which you want to get for free.) Add to that a general overcosting of Circle beasts, and a lack of the pricy solos other factions get as free options, and it's not great. But the problem isn't the theme benefits, it's the shitty models. Until and unless those go through a good round of CID, the theme benefits almost don't matter. This is true, but it's only half of the problem. while the supposedly iconic circle units are just crap, there is also the secondary problem that Circle suffers from the same problem as Legion, namely having very well-defined sub-themes in the faction, which PP then uses to create hamstrung crappy themes. If you need a good comparison, ask how many themes Cygnar players can take a Hunter in? or Khador players a Juggernaut, or Cryx a stalker? (insert whatever non-character jack you want into these examples). The themes only limit infantry / solos / characters. Both Circle and Legion have theyr battlegroups shackled as well as their infantry, which makes their themes just a world of suck (Oracles exceptedwhich of course is why you see nothing else) -und_ed
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Sept 11, 2017 9:00:38 GMT
Honestly the problem with Circle is not something which can be fixed by theme benefits - in strict terms, the bonuses of secret masters aren't actually that bad (though there's a lack of mainline units that will hopefully be sorted with whatever new releases it gets.) The big problem with Secret Masters is that druids are shit. Mistriders are shit. So to get the bonuses, you need to take shit units. The only good models that count for points are the fulcrum (which can't be the only thing in your list) and the solos (which you want to get for free.) Add to that a general overcosting of Circle beasts, and a lack of the pricy solos other factions get as free options, and it's not great. But the problem isn't the theme benefits, it's the shitty models. Until and unless those go through a good round of CID, the theme benefits almost don't matter. This is true, but it's only half of the problem. while the supposedly iconic circle units are just crap, there is also the secondary problem that Circle suffers from the same problem as Legion, namely having very well-defined sub-themes in the faction, which PP then uses to create hamstrung crappy themes. If you need a good comparison, ask how many themes Cygnar players can take a Hunter in? or Khador players a Juggernaut, or Cryx a stalker? (insert whatever non-character jack you want into these examples). The themes only limit infantry / solos / characters. Both Circle and Legion have theyr battlegroups shackled as well as their infantry, which makes their themes just a world of suck (Oracles exceptedwhich of course is why you see nothing else) -und_ed Oh, I do agree. Ret has a similar issue with their themes, in that they've got well-designed and exclusive subthemes in their faction - Forges, for instance, only allows Shyeel Jacks (and is also one of the only caster-restricted themes in the game); Shadows allows a grand total of THREE units to be taken (and keys all of it's benefits off of them) and excludes a good chunk of fairly central support, etc. I think it's a symptom of age - the original factions weren't designed to have inbuilt subthemes, so they get less restrictive themes (ie. the abomination that is heavy metal and/or jaws of the wolf) while the latter factions (Ret and Hordes) have more defined themes and thus end up with crap like 'Wold only themes,' 'living-only themes' etc...I wouldn't be shocked to see a troll theme in the theme dump that only allows elemental lights, for instance. I would have much preferred it if PP had actually restricted the warmachine factions in a similar fashion to Ret and Hordes, even if it made less sense, just so that we don't keep seeing this carryover of bad design/lacking fluff of a decade ago impacting balance right now.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 11, 2017 9:07:52 GMT
I didn't realise Ret was in the same boat, but it does make sense with the well defined houses.
I'd love PP to do something to address this silliness, because right now all themes are absolutely not created equal.
-und_ed
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Sept 11, 2017 9:23:52 GMT
They sound like they'll blast heavies from ranged now... Perhaps not from very far away but...
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Sept 11, 2017 13:10:09 GMT
POW 14 isn't blasting a lot of heavies, though they can kinda get close with CRA.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Sept 11, 2017 13:23:26 GMT
I didn't realise Ret was in the same boat, but it does make sense with the well defined houses. I'd love PP to do something to address this silliness, because right now all themes are absolutely not created equal. -und_ed I actually think when the wold CiD becomes official Bones of Orboros will be a pretty popular theme. The tharn theme and Wild hunt need a similar rework. Another thing you notice is it seems the newer factions have worse internal balance. Hordes (except for new skorne) is plagued by internal balance issues. retribution relies on a select number of units and jacks to win and I have seen little list diversity (at least in the NOVA area that I primarily play in.) Cygnar, Khador, Cryx, and protectorate seems to have the least internal balance issues I know people will argue with me but hear me out. Cygnar has lots of selections, a lot of the stuff people say is garbage I have seen used to incredibly potent effect. They have a fantastic stable of jacks, a good stable of casters, and a nice selection of infantry and solos and thats not counting mercs. Khador IMO is the same, lots of good options (with some exceptions in jacks with high costs like the spriggan) Most of their caster stable is useable, they have lots of good infantry options and other than a few models like demo core and bonbardiers I think they are mostly in a good place. Cryx was one of those factions I feel was actually not as awful as the player base continually demanded it was early MK3. I think they are a perfect example of a faction that was designed around themes and releases. Protectorate has a few crap units but internally there is a lot of diversity. They seem to have the issue where their versions of everyone else themes of the old guard warmachine factions just have better benefits and unit selections. The exemplar theme giving blessed, the flame guard theme giving...girded?...faith full masses at least gives a really good jack benefit and the unit selections are so cheap you can feasibly run units and jacks and still fit in a few free models.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Sept 11, 2017 13:52:02 GMT
In regards to hordes themes (in general because its not just a circle problem) being subpar I think we just saw an over reaction to the MKII Female Doging about fury being stronger than focus in the transition from MKII to MKIII. PP tried to balance that out with higher point costs and less powerful animi for beasts but then they also handed out power up to jacks which, when combined, totally flipped the equation in warmachines favor. Couple that with the fact that they didn't address the fact that WM infantry was always stronger to compensate for the disparity and we now see ourselves in the current situation. MKIII hordes is a mess. Skorne will be fine once they receive their full themes since they had a proper re-work. New troll theme and maybe band of heroes (notice a fix to troll infantry involved) will be fine since it was designed 100% in the new environment. Legion will be able to crutch on Oracles for a while since that theme would be seriously OP if the faction was designed better from the ground up. Circle will now be able to crutch on bones since wolds have been looked at in the context of MKIII (low and behold point reductions and higher pow melee fixes hordes beasts who knew!). Once PP pulls their collective heads out of their asses and realize that they've over compensated on most aspects of hordes design things will get better. Until then my Protectorate army his a hell of a lot of fun In context of Circle specifically I see the problems as: - Threshold for free points generation on infantry themes is too high. They need to be reduced from 20 to 15 like they did for Sons of the Tempest. This would allow lists to actually build a decent battle group while leveraging the theme advantages. - Circle solos are all pretty cheap and utilitarian so they don't offer the same availability for point bloat that other factions do. - The expensive solos that would be attractive as free benfits are usually excluded as being allowed for free (Lord of the Feast, Morraig, wolf rider champion) - The incredibly cheap solos aren't bundled together as an option like wracks are (gallows groves, war wolves) - The one solo which would be universally taken isn't available in the themes where she would actually be of benefit (wilder). Seriously this is one of the most Firetrucking boneheaded moves I've seen from them. - One of the themes is made up of the most subpar options possible while not allowing the functional aspects to contribute to the free points (minion options in secret masters) Circle infantry is for the most part actually fine. There are only a few really sub par models which would need to be addressed: - Druids - Lord of the feast - Blood pack - Wolf rider champion - Wolf riders - Nuala - Reeve Hunter Those options do not relegate their themes to the dustbin though (other than druids) since there are plenty of other options available to those themes. Fix beasts in general (point drop, animi and/or pow bump) and fix the theme rules and things will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Sept 11, 2017 15:44:19 GMT
I didn't realise Ret was in the same boat, but it does make sense with the well defined houses. I'd love PP to do something to address this silliness, because right now all themes are absolutely not created equal. -und_ed I actually think when the wold CiD becomes official Bones of Orboros will be a pretty popular theme. The tharn theme and Wild hunt need a similar rework. Another thing you notice is it seems the newer factions have worse internal balance. Hordes (except for new skorne) is plagued by internal balance issues. retribution relies on a select number of units and jacks to win and I have seen little list diversity (at least in the NOVA area that I primarily play in.) Cygnar, Khador, Cryx, and protectorate seems to have the least internal balance issues I know people will argue with me but hear me out. Cygnar has lots of selections, a lot of the stuff people say is garbage I have seen used to incredibly potent effect. They have a fantastic stable of jacks, a good stable of casters, and a nice selection of infantry and solos and thats not counting mercs. Khador IMO is the same, lots of good options (with some exceptions in jacks with high costs like the spriggan) Most of their caster stable is useable, they have lots of good infantry options and other than a few models like demo core and bonbardiers I think they are mostly in a good place. Cryx was one of those factions I feel was actually not as awful as the player base continually demanded it was early MK3. I think they are a perfect example of a faction that was designed around themes and releases. Protectorate has a few crap units but internally there is a lot of diversity. They seem to have the issue where their versions of everyone else themes of the old guard warmachine factions just have better benefits and unit selections. The exemplar theme giving blessed, the flame guard theme giving...girded?...faith full masses at least gives a really good jack benefit and the unit selections are so cheap you can feasibly run units and jacks and still fit in a few free models. I'm going to have to disagree with you re:Ret, they're one of, if not THE best internally balanced faction in the bloody game. They've got maybe 6-7 nonviable options, but everything else has at least niche application (competitively.) Their lists are looking static right now because ghost fleet is such a bogeyman, and they only have 2 answers to it which they have to play (or lose) which also have pretty well-defined weaknesses (and thus, there's a clear 'best' pairing.) if and when the meta shifts, I think we could easily see more of Rahn, Ossyan, Kaelyssa, Helynna, Vyros1, and Elara2. I don't disagree with the rest of your assessment, though. I see a lot of Female Doging from (particularly) Cygnar players that their entire faction is crap except for Haley2 and Stormlances, but that's just...not the case. At all.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Sept 11, 2017 21:01:23 GMT
I'd say Khador takes the prize for best internal balance in the game.
Almost every caster is tournament-playable, and just kossites and Man-O-Wars need help. That's a damned sight better than any other faction in the game.
-und_ed
|
|