|
Post by Swampmist on Mar 8, 2017 21:07:36 GMT
That secondary suggestion does push Maddox out of using the theme well though, which I doubt is the idea.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 8, 2017 22:16:23 GMT
That sounds awful, imo. Why even play in theme? It's anti synergistic. You gain extremely meagre benefits for playing bad models. Well, because Storm Division is basically the less limitant of our themes, letting you take almost everything you want to take anyway. Saying that it would be awful is a bit strong imo... The Maddox list you played at the australian tournament would basically just lose a solo since if I remember well you didn't played double lances (and the list would still let you play Lances, just not giving you free points for it) I also think that conductor on jacks would make Stormsmiths a lot more appealing, so I don't see what there is of anti-synergistic. Than sure, it doesn't give you free points to play the best unit in the game in a very little limiting theme, sure, but that was actually the point of changing it. Even changing Advanced move for relentless charge to all Stormknights could be a good option anyway, given the pathfinder weakness of Storm Division. I did use double lances, it's the second Corps of the list behind the storm blades. I would be stuck with a total of 0 free points and thus would go out of theme, drop the blades who are too expensive and then, after humming and hahing, drop Maddox for Haley 2. The theme is limited, don't act as if it isn't as that is a patently false statement. Losing access to rhupert, ragman, any magical weapons which aren't battlegroup and all character jacks which aren't your own is a big deal. Losing access to pathfinder outside of Maddox is a big deal. Themes shouldn't be used to prop up bad units, they should be there to push a certain kind of army and grant it a weakness that it didn't have before in order to capitalise on a benefit. Stormsmiths and stormguard aren't worth it. Storm division emphasises the strengths of using a cygnaran melee and close ranged focused army and creates a viable playstyle out of it. This is a good thing. It is good that we have a theme that is cool looking, can push some awesome conversions and competitively viable without always being the correct option. It gives a place to a piece or 2 through its limitations and synergies. Maddox's pathfinder benefit is meaningful when rhupert is absent and you aren't forced to take garbage models. This gives her a place. Stormblades with advanced move are more meaningful when you can take them cheaper, support them with other good units and the meta is in prime position to support them with maximum heavy lists. If Storm Lances are op, it's not because they do something noone else can. Everyone can put lots of buffs and support units with good models, everyone has units that can shoot and melee. Storm lances being op would really come down to some numbers being too high. No need to gut one of the coolest lists to hit the cygnar stable without proper consider of its ramifications. I don't think your "maximum stormguard and storm smiths" theme will be powerful enough for competitive play. It doesn't push new casters to hit the competitive scene. It would be a non option imo. Im not trying to say "your ideas are bad and you are bad for having them". I am trying to say that in the mob mindset, when attacking storm lances there is often less consideration for the collateral damage that can happen completely out of proportion with the effect of the original offender.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Mar 8, 2017 23:04:49 GMT
Dunno, I think you are giving the idea less credit than you should, but is just an idea and so opinable.
Maybe the theme wouldn't be strong enough as you say, then the solution would just be to give better returns than the ones I proposed, but still giving a free solo to bring a full Lance unit is clearly an error imho. You can't take the best unit of the game, from the majority of the community belived to be already OP as it is, and give it a 25% discount on a theme that sure, limits you in some way, but is actually the less limitant of the 3 we have at our disposal.
It is a recipe for disaster, and should clearly be changed.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 9, 2017 1:10:18 GMT
I have almost no interest in picking at this scab, but i still say reduction to def 12, maybe a minor little other tune down, and lances are fine.
The real problem is that almost every other melee unit option is Firetrucking garbage with very few exceptions in very specific corner cases.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 9, 2017 1:12:28 GMT
Dunno, I think you are giving the idea less credit than you should, but is just an idea and so opinable. Maybe the theme wouldn't be strong enough as you say, then the solution would just be to give better returns than the ones I proposed, but still giving a free solo to bring a full Lance unit is clearly an error imho. You can't take the best unit of the game, from the majority of the community belived to be already OP as it is, and give it a 25% discount on a theme that sure, limits you in some way, but is actually the less limitant of the 3 we have at our disposal. It is a recipe for disaster, and should clearly be changed. Feel free to say "it should clearly be changed" after proving your assertion, not before. That is the problem I have with most of this discussion, people assuming without proving.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Mar 9, 2017 1:17:19 GMT
Ok, let me rephrase, "It should clearly be changed, IMHO".
That said, your point is good for everyone, including you.
"Proving" isn't particularly easy on subjective things (like: "are Lances OP?"), and a thing that seems crystal clear to someone could not be "proven" in the eyes of someone else.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 9, 2017 1:25:18 GMT
Dunno, I think you are giving the idea less credit than you should, but is just an idea and so opinable. Maybe the theme wouldn't be strong enough as you say, then the solution would just be to give better returns than the ones I proposed, but still giving a free solo to bring a full Lance unit is clearly an error imho. You can't take the best unit of the game, from the majority of the community belived to be already OP as it is, and give it a 25% discount on a theme that sure, limits you in some way, but is actually the less limitant of the 3 we have at our disposal. It is a recipe for disaster, and should clearly be changed. Feel free to say "it should clearly be changed" after proving your assertion, not before. That is the problem I have with most of this discussion, people assuming without proving. I agree with a lot of what you say, and if i had a dollar for every report on you on the PP forums where i posted "The delivery is raw, but he's not incorrect." id' be a very rich man, but holy hell man, your tone sometimes comes off like chewing on teeth. (if it is not clear, i am good naturedly laughing as i write this).
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 9, 2017 2:10:14 GMT
Feel free to say "it should clearly be changed" after proving your assertion, not before. That is the problem I have with most of this discussion, people assuming without proving. I agree with a lot of what you say, and if i had a dollar for every report on you on the PP forums where i posted "The delivery is raw, but he's not incorrect." id' be a very rich man, but holy hell man, your tone sometimes comes off like chewing on teeth. (if it is not clear, i am good naturedly laughing as i write this). I get you, and I think there is a lot of personality clash and cultural clash going on on forums, but I generally would prefer to be right than nice, you know? Its the Dr Phil "don't sugar coat it or you'll just eat that too" philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 9, 2017 2:17:34 GMT
Ok, let me rephrase, "It should clearly be changed, IMHO". That said, your point is good for everyone, including you. "Proving" isn't particularly easy on subjective things (like: "are Lances OP?"), and a thing that seems crystal clear to someone could not be "proven" in the eyes of someone else. Essentially the basics should be that if we are trying to prove something correct (rather than just expressing our feelings) then we just need to make sure that we don't include our emotions into the debate, don't rely on anecdotes and use examples. Make sure that our argument is about what we are talking about, like how storm lances problems might be symptomatic of other things which may resolve themselves. It just needs to be a reasonable argument, no hyperbole, no overly emotive statements, just a good use of the facts. I know I can come off as grating, but I like my toy soldiers, dammit! I don't want them taken away because of bad reasons, like Caine 2 and Haley 1 were.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 9, 2017 3:14:43 GMT
I agree with a lot of what you say, and if i had a dollar for every report on you on the PP forums where i posted "The delivery is raw, but he's not incorrect." id' be a very rich man, but holy hell man, your tone sometimes comes off like chewing on teeth. (if it is not clear, i am good naturedly laughing as i write this). I get you, and I think there is a lot of personality clash and cultural clash going on on forums, but I generally would prefer to be right than nice, you know? Its the Dr Phil "don't sugar coat it or you'll just eat that too" philosophy. Oddly enough I can respect that. I'll take spirited conviction over poorly reasoned absolutism any day as long as there's daylight for point and counter point.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Mar 9, 2017 6:19:28 GMT
Then they'd have to get a hell of a lot better at whichever one they end up as. POW 15 on the charge is garbage if we're talking 5 attacks for 20 points. And RNG 8 Pow 12s ain't cutting it if it's 5 shots for 20 points. Welcome to every other heavy cav unit! Where 5 attacks(+horsy kicks) for 20 points is the norm... IMO, what storm lances need is to lose either assault or e-leap(on everything). Then they'd be about where Cav should be. Then everybody else needs to get buffed up to similar levels. Melee infantry become much cheaper to compensate for dying to shooting too easily. Other heavy cav get buffed to the same level as nerfed stormlances. Of course, with significant levels of buffing to other units, storm lances wouldn't need to get nerfed. They're right on the cusp of not needing it. But they're actually part of the reason infantry are too weak, there is too much infantry hate. And Stormlances provide infantry hate while also being durable armor crackers. And they're pretty fast to boot. If infantry became significantly cheaper, a lot of problems with simply solve themselves.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 9, 2017 12:03:13 GMT
IN various places i've noted that e-leaps could come off the gun as a companion tune down with a point of def drop. My problem is that fixes external balance, yet does not address internal balance. I know Cygnar is not alone on internal balance issues (oh hai cryx!). I think even if you do the above (i personally think eleaps off everything is a bit much...) you're still going to see SL's in exactly the same frequency as before because they will still be head and shoulders above everything else with exception of stormblades in one corner case and sk's in one other corner case. However in about 90% of scenarios it will still be worth taking even modulated SL's over any other melee unit the faction has access to. And this is my problem with the current state of the game. There's a ton of options, but in many cases not really. In many cases there are 1-2 choices which are head and shoulders above the rest in most scenarios and then there's this one bizarre scenario where outrider #1 is a good choice, and the other bizarre scenario where outrider #2 is a good choice, usually by theme (which, don't get me started), and then a couple where you look at the unit and can't help but think "DAFUQ?". Using cygnar melee as example : SL's are always fantastic. Stormblades are pretty decent in theme, SK's are cheap effective fodder / jammer in jack heavy lists which MK3 does help, Stormguard and PK are like the main character from the movie Rudy. Bless their little hearts, but do they suck, but, well you invested in them, so give them their one play every four years so you can look at yourself in the mirror and justify that impulse buy. None of that is to say its fair that non-cygnar players should suffer balance iniquity because of that, but internal and external balance are symptoms of the same disease. Cygnar players take SL's becaue their internal balance is so damn skewed, its really not their fault that they do this (i know you'renot saying that, btw), just most other options suck.
|
|
|
Post by sideshowlucifer on Mar 9, 2017 23:11:49 GMT
Most other options suck in all factions. I still don't think Cygnar infantry are as bad as everyone thinks they are. Stormlances could use a cost decrease, same with Long Gunners. I think Sword Knights and Storm Blades are great infantry compared to whats available to everyone right now. The problem is that Lances shoot better than Longgunners and fight better than the other melee options, so it's a no-brainer to use them.
Externally, they are head and shoulders better than other factions' Cav models as well. I think the other factions is where Cav should be honestly. They don't nudge out the infantry but do provide a fast unit.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 10, 2017 0:29:40 GMT
Most other options suck in all factions. I still don't think Cygnar infantry are as bad as everyone thinks they are. Stormlances could use a cost decrease, same with Long Gunners. I think Sword Knights and Storm Blades are great infantry compared to whats available to everyone right now. The problem is that Lances shoot better than Longgunners and fight better than the other melee options, so it's a no-brainer to use them. Externally, they are head and shoulders better than other factions' Cav models as well. I think the other factions is where Cav should be honestly. They don't nudge out the infantry but do provide a fast unit. The fact that long gunners shoot terribly is irrelevant to this comparison? Come on, long gunners have been bad at being a ranged unit for 2 editions now, let's not star pretending that isn't true in order to make storm lances look bad. Sword knights are a good UA away from being good, currently they are eh. Compare to deadrots for a good comparison, imo. Storm blades are ok when the meta is good for them and not great when it's bad. Other factions infantry is often as bad as cygnar are now, that isn't an argument for nerfing storm lances it just makes it harder to see how OP they are (if at all).
|
|
|
Post by sideshowlucifer on Mar 10, 2017 2:02:57 GMT
It's all academic anyway since PP won't ever see any of this, but still of the opinion that Lances need to be on par with the other Cav and they would be just fine.
As far as Longgunners being terrible, I still disagree. I use them to cover zones on occassion. They are too expensive is my problem with them. I rarely play a list without at least one unit of Stormblades, and I often use two. Swordknights, I would love to see get their second sword back. I don't know what to do with Stormguard, they should be the anti-infantry unit, and they likely could be, but it's a role that's so saturated in Cygnar, that it isn't necessary for that role, especially since they are not even closest to the best at it.
The thing I'm learning with infantry since playing the CiD stuff is that it's all about target saturation. You have to have enough important stuff that something will reach it's target. I've had maybe 2 Dread Rots actually make melee attacks out of like 20 games. I'm going to try them with more priority targets and see if I can force tougher decisions on my opponent.
Jacks are just too good for their price right now. They nudge infantry out of almost every role since they are priced close to one another, but the jacks can boost and survive better. Anything with survival or ranged attacks are what is being spammed right now and sadly, the Lances have both.
I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this. I have said time again I think the Lances are easily a 30-35 pt unit as they are.
|
|