|
Post by jisidro on Sept 12, 2017 14:14:05 GMT
I'd like free points instead of free models... I can't see that happening, the free slots only being for Solos and UAs is a way of making people play more diverse lists, just like the zones in Steamroller can only be scored by certain models. Sorry, I was too brief. I don't mean extra points that you can freely use. I mean some sort of "BG" points for the free models allowed. It seems too bad. Even now theme forces are unappealing unless the theme has good spammable models. And restrict already faint benefit for the subpar lists? I don't think that it is fair. If you need to aim for something, then it should be the individual models, not the theme force itself. I'd like free points instead of free models... Remember that there are many overcosted solos and CAs that are subjected for the free model, and 'free models' per some points actually gives them a chance. Unless adjust every single unappealing ones individually, change to the free points only make the situation worse. Well, - Solos and CAs are not equally costed amongst faction creating a point imbalance between lists. - The fact that solos being free means their cost is largely irrelevant. I believe this will hamper development, CID evaluation and player views on models. - Some lists allow 6,7,8pt character solos while other themes have a selection 2,3,4pt solos... If for X points you got Y free points to spend in Z it would narrow the gap between undeveloped themes who have to take their vannila solos and the more developed themes that get Eyriss, Alten, Draggons and what not...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Sept 12, 2017 14:22:50 GMT
I can't see that happening, the free slots only being for Solos and UAs is a way of making people play more diverse lists, just like the zones in Steamroller can only be scored by certain models. Sorry, I was too brief. I don't mean extra points that you can freely use. I mean some sort of "BG" points for the free models allowed. It seems too bad. Even now theme forces are unappealing unless the theme has good spammable models. And restrict already faint benefit for the subpar lists? I don't think that it is fair. If you need to aim for something, then it should be the individual models, not the theme force itself. Remember that there are many overcosted solos and CAs that are subjected for the free model, and 'free models' per some points actually gives them a chance. Unless adjust every single unappealing ones individually, change to the free points only make the situation worse. Well, - Solos and CAs are not equally costed amongst faction creating a point imbalance between lists. - The fact that solos being free means their cost is largely irrelevant. I believe this will hamper development, CID evaluation and player views on models. - Some lists allow 6,7,8pt character solos while other themes have a selection 2,3,4pt solos... If for X points you got Y free points to spend in Z it would narrow the gap between undeveloped themes who have to take their vannila solos and the more developed themes that get Eyriss, Alten, Draggons and what not... Ah ok, so like each theme gets for example 15 free points, but they to be spent on Solos or UAs?
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Sept 12, 2017 15:26:40 GMT
... Ah ok, so like each theme gets for example 15 free points, but they to be spent on Solos or UAs? Instead of: "... for each 20 points of Burgers in this army, you can add one Coke free of cost..." you'd have "... for each 20 points of Burgers in this army, you get X extra points that can only be used to buy cokes" I would also adda rule to Steamroller saying that points not used in a list within the permitted limit would always be considered as spent towards the army's theme, if any. This would allow a little extra flexibility when trying to get to a threshold. It's very easy to need a couple of points to reach a certain threshold and not having a model that fits that leads to downgrades and sidegrades as you try to mix and match to reach a certain value. This change would add a small buffer to help with list building.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Sept 12, 2017 17:18:52 GMT
... Ah ok, so like each theme gets for example 15 free points, but they to be spent on Solos or UAs? Instead of: "... for each 20 points of Burgers in this army, you can add one Coke free of cost..." you'd have "... for each 20 points of Burgers in this army, you get X extra points that can only be used to buy cokes" I would also adda rule to Steamroller saying that points not used in a list within the permitted limit would always be considered as spent towards the army's theme, if any. This would allow a little extra flexibility when trying to get to a threshold. It's very easy to need a couple of points to reach a certain threshold and not having a model that fits that leads to downgrades and sidegrades as you try to mix and match to reach a certain value. This change would add a small buffer to help with list building. No fries?
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Sept 12, 2017 17:26:20 GMT
Sometimes fries ... but always cokes. If you're lucky ... frings
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Sept 12, 2017 17:29:04 GMT
Sometimes fries ... but always cokes. If you're lucky ... frings What about Shakes?
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Sept 12, 2017 17:34:13 GMT
That's extra ... you need to spam to get the shake.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Sept 12, 2017 18:24:16 GMT
And is "spam" even an issue anymore? To be clear, 2x of each Marauders, Kodiaks, and Juggernauts is not a spam list. That's a skew, which is not quite the same thing. Spamming is taking tons of the exact same model. I wish we could agree on a more precise definition. FWIW, mine is: More than 3 of the same beast or jack, or more than 2 of a unit. That may seem arbitrary, but when you look at the way true, deliberate spam lists tend to be structured, I think it holds up as well as anything.
When does spamming happen? First of all, a model/unit has to be able to be taken in large numbers at all, so FA higher than 2, right? Second, it has to be cheap enough to make that feasible. A unit that costs 15 points could theoretically be taken up to 5 times, but realistically, I think we're looking for not only units but also jacks and beasts that are cheaper than this. A minimum unit of WG Rifles with 3 rockets is 14 points, and it's not unusual to see 3 or 4 of those in a list. Third, that has to be worthwhile. The model/unit has to be such that 6 or 7 of them would be better than a more diversified investment of points, at least with a particular caster. So either the model itself is ahead of the curve, or its synergies with that caster are at least a little too strong, or both. Whether this is a problem that needs errata is a different question that will likely have a different answer in each case.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Sept 12, 2017 19:14:50 GMT
"spam" might be the wrong term here. My point is basically that the theme forces restricts list design in two ways. First and most obviously, it dictates what models you are ALLOWED to take. But it also has a softer restriction in what models it ENCOURAGES you to take. Runeshapers, Kriel Stone and Dhunia Knot in the Power of Dhunia theme are all ALLOWED, but they are not ENCOURAGED. You are basically forced to take the stone (due to how the faction works) and that already costs you a free solo. If Runeshapers had been good enough to play, they STILL would not see the table, because you lose out on free stuff if you bring more than one unit. I guess my point is that i would like to make the choice to bring a list that is more balanced in the Battle Group:Infantry ratio more appealing. Now you are very strongly encouraged to play lists that are either or. Almost no lists (Irregulars?) allow you to walk the middle ground without a big opportunity cost.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Sept 12, 2017 19:45:22 GMT
As a side remark, infantry-based themes tend to be more balanced by virtue of warnoun points existing.
More to the point, I find it specious to suggest themes punish you for spending points in a way that doesn't net you free points. You make a choice. There are pros and cons to that choice. You weigh them, make up your mind and live with your decision. This is no different than choosing to play in theme or not in the first place, or even which caster you will use or any other list build decisions. If not getting your maximum value of free models is a "punishment" for your choices, then there are "punishments" for every choice.
You would like to have your preferred way of building a list not to feel as disadvantaged as it does to you now. That's understandable, but not rational.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Sept 12, 2017 20:32:38 GMT
If i play Band of Heroes and play Fennblades with attachment rather than 6 warders the game says "sure, you can do that, but then you will have to pay 5 points for that fell caller you want". That sure feels like punishment to me lol. Sure, you could argue that there is a difference between getting a punishment and NOT getting a reward, but that feels way more like semantics than game design.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Sept 12, 2017 21:11:55 GMT
If i play Band of Heroes and play Fennblades with attachment rather than 6 warders the game says "sure, you can do that, but then you will have to pay 5 points for that fell caller you want". That sure feels like punishment to me lol. Sure, you could argue that there is a difference between getting a punishment and NOT getting a reward, but that feels way more like semantics than game design. Ok, so why do you want to play Fennblades with attachment? Because again, by that logic you get punished for every choice you make° that has a downside. ° Like playing Trollbloods (j/k)
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Sept 13, 2017 2:14:30 GMT
If i play Band of Heroes and play Fennblades with attachment rather than 6 warders the game says "sure, you can do that, but then you will have to pay 5 points for that fell caller you want". That sure feels like punishment to me lol. Sure, you could argue that there is a difference between getting a punishment and NOT getting a reward, but that feels way more like semantics than game design. It's not semantics if you really didn't need or want that extra free solo. Inherent within your argument is an assumption that I don't think is true. Your argument assumes that building your theme army to maximize the free solo / command attachment / whatever will yield the best possible army. After all, an army that has more free stuff *has to be* better than one that didn't maximize the free stuff, right? I disagree. People who always field armies that are min / maxed so that they maximize their FREE STUFF will become the worst possible thing on the battlefield: predictable. If you are having significant trouble resisting the Siren's Song of Free Stuff, allow me to plant a little thought in your head that might help: If you are buying more solos / command attachments at your LGS so that you can maximize your FREE STUFF you have become a victim of one of the savvier marketing aspects of these theme armies. Yes, the theme armies are supposed to help PP build up the game, and they make it easier to get a newby to commit to a buy decision when they see a theme that really captures what they like. But have you ever considered that ~one~ of the reasons why solos, CA and weapon crews are the free point items is to increase their sales? Seriously, how many Stormblade Captains, Seneschals, Forge Seers, Necrotechs, House Shyeel Articifers, or whatever do you really *need* in an army? Before the theme armies, I'm betting that you probably would have said just one. Now that they cost 0 points with the theme, you need 2 or more, right? Sucker.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Sept 13, 2017 2:51:54 GMT
If i play Band of Heroes and play Fennblades with attachment rather than 6 warders the game says "sure, you can do that, but then you will have to pay 5 points for that fell caller you want". That sure feels like punishment to me lol. Sure, you could argue that there is a difference between getting a punishment and NOT getting a reward, but that feels way more like semantics than game design. It's not semantics if you really didn't need or want that extra free solo. Inherent within your argument is an assumption that I don't think is true. Your argument assumes that building your theme army to maximize the free solo / command attachment / whatever will yield the best possible army. After all, an army that has more free stuff *has to be* better than one that didn't maximize the free stuff, right? I disagree. People who always field armies that are min / maxed so that they maximize their FREE STUFF will become the worst possible thing on the battlefield: predictable. If you are having significant trouble resisting the Siren's Song of Free Stuff, allow me to plant a little thought in your head that might help: If you are buying more solos / command attachments at your LGS so that you can maximize your FREE STUFF you have become a victim of one of the savvier marketing aspects of these theme armies. Yes, the theme armies are supposed to help PP build up the game, and they make it easier to get a newby to commit to a buy decision when they see a theme that really captures what they like. But have you ever considered that ~one~ of the reasons why solos, CA and weapon crews are the free point items is to increase their sales? Seriously, how many Stormblade Captains, Seneschals, Forge Seers, Necrotechs, House Shyeel Articifers, or whatever do you really *need* in an army? Before the theme armies, I'm betting that you probably would have said just one. Now that they cost 0 points with the theme, you need 2 or more, right? Sucker. What you don't scult your models from epoxy and clay? You don't 3d print your own bases? Sucker.... I mean like the rules are free and you can print the cards and then 3d print your bases and then just like glue the portraits to the bases. Absolutely 0 money to the greedy pp. And when you're ready you can sculpt your own model and replace the portrait. Like who buys their models from the people obviously trying to sell them to you. Stay woke
|
|
|
Post by lordsizzlor on Sept 13, 2017 3:33:31 GMT
Spam or having a uniformed army is a fundamental tactic.
In certain situations a flexible army is important, other times redundancy wins the day.
It's not a downside of the game it is an inherent strategy in warfare.
|
|