Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jan 5, 2018 13:23:32 GMT
Having counterplay is fine But but but Cryx got something arguably too powerful, this means everything released for everyone in the future needs to be broken beyond belief as well! Some factions have a theoretical counter with certain casters, that's the same thing as "knockdown is useless", right? I'll actually be taking that stance in the upcoming CID with no sarcasm. They balance cryx as if everything in the game is still OP and many of the rest with a more refined hand. so.....yeah.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 5, 2018 15:50:43 GMT
But but but Cryx got something arguably too powerful, this means everything released for everyone in the future needs to be broken beyond belief as well! Some factions have a theoretical counter with certain casters, that's the same thing as "knockdown is useless", right? I'll actually be taking that stance in the upcoming CID with no sarcasm. They balance cryx as if everything in the game is still OP and many of the rest with a more refined hand. so.....yeah.
As long as you realize that stance is full of shit and you're doing it as a sort of protest against Cryxergy rather than believing in it. Then yeah that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Jan 5, 2018 15:56:01 GMT
Strongly advicating for the best possible outcome is hardly "shit."
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 5, 2018 18:27:45 GMT
Strongly advicating for the best possible outcome is hardly "shit." Over the long term I feel the stance of I want the best thing for my faction with no weaknesses will lead to an overall bad game, and excessive power-creep. If you're not willing to accept sacrifices the game will turn like every other game with power-creep and just die out. I don't particularly care for the "I want OP stuff cause my opponent just got OP stuff" Most of the "best possible outcomes" I've heard in this thread are frankly rediculous.
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 5, 2018 19:15:02 GMT
if its a soft counter its fine
if its a hard counter its not fine
like playing malekus into kallus is a hard counter, and that matchup is so onesided and boring you might as well just concede.
and anti-knockdown tech is a hard counter to sacrosanct
which is why sacrosanct should not only knock down but also immediately end the model's activation. then it can't be hard countered.
Hard counters are terrible game design. But also its for the same reason PP took a lot of our denial abilities like impervious wall away from us. People didnt like being told they couldnt do things. The same logic applies in reverse. PoM shouldnt get told that sacrosanct cant do anything because of anti-knockdown tech. That's poor design.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Jan 5, 2018 19:49:46 GMT
Strongly advicating for the best possible outcome is hardly "shit." Over the long term I feel the stance of I want the best thing for my faction with no weaknesses will lead to an overall bad game, and excessive power-creep. If you're not willing to accept sacrifices the game will turn like every other game with power-creep and just die out. I don't particularly care for the "I want OP stuff cause my opponent just got OP stuff" Most of the "best possible outcomes" I've heard in this thread are frankly rediculous. Thats on PP as arbiters of CID.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Jan 5, 2018 19:52:27 GMT
I mean, look what happened with paladin champ. Careful what you advocate. you might lose an actually useful ability for Girded.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 5, 2018 20:05:54 GMT
I mean, look what happened with paladin champ. Careful what you advocate. you might lose an actually useful ability for Girded. I feel like that incident helps out my argument more. A large chunk of people complained that retaliatory strike was powerless because of 1" reach ment it won't work all the time so instead we got girded. Complaining about the situational status of an ability led to negative results for the protectorate. Complaining a out the situational usefulness of sacrosanct will lead to negative results for the protectorate. We're not the favourite children cygnar or cryx here. If we misbehave we will get coal for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Jan 5, 2018 20:32:50 GMT
I mean, look what happened with paladin champ. Careful what you advocate. you might lose an actually useful ability for Girded. I feel like that incident helps out my argument more. A large chunk of people complained that retaliatory strike was powerless because of 1" reach ment it won't work all the time so instead we got girded. Complaining about the situational status of an ability led to negative results for the protectorate. Complaining a out the situational usefulness of sacrosanct will lead to negative results for the protectorate. We're not the favourite children cygnar or cryx here. If we misbehave we will get coal for Christmas. Whereas not saying anything will result in no change.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jan 5, 2018 20:45:13 GMT
Just curious W0lfBane, are you playing the Protectorate actively? Your resigned, laissez-faire tone sounds like that of someone no longer playing/enjoying the game.
I understand that there are people who disapprove of PP recent track record, that this is just a game, the power of voting with your wallet, and all that jazz, but expecting garbage and just taking that garbage seems like an unusual attitude to have for what is a hobby that's supposed to be amusement.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Jan 5, 2018 22:12:31 GMT
if its a soft counter its fine if its a hard counter its not fine like playing malekus into kallus is a hard counter, and that matchup is so onesided and boring you might as well just concede. and anti-knockdown tech is a hard counter to sacrosanct which is why sacrosanct should not only knock down but also immediately end the model's activation. then it can't be hard countered. Hard counters are terrible game design. ....you do realise the faction forum you're posting this in, right? The one with two Purification casters, the pile of fire-immune models, the 4pt solo that says no to stationary or knockdown for the caster and critical pieces, and the ability to make their battlegroup spell immune or largely ranged immune? I dislike hard counters as a concept as well, but they're part of the game, and let's be honest, if they were taken out, how long would it be before the whinging about "Lylyth3 assassinated me even though I had the Covenant WRYYYYY PP?!?!?!" began on here?
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 5, 2018 22:26:07 GMT
its called balance. obviously if you remove hard counters you might also have to rebalance some of the things hard counters prevented.
Also I dont think the covenant really hard counters lylyth3 anyway so probably not the best example on your part. Kallus hard counters Malekus. Thats a better example.
but hard counters should not exist. theyre bad for gameplay. games should never be decided during list construction.
soft counters are superior because they still allow skill to overcome adversity. where a hard counter gives you no chance at all.
hard counters like fire immunity should be changed to soft counters like fire resistance (POW of fire based damage is halved). Because then it doesnt completely kill casters like Malekus.
Same goes for Sacrosanct. Sacrosanct should not be completely useless against armies with anti-knockdown. Sacrosanct should have some other punishment besides knockdown (like immediately ending the model's activation).
We basically only have one purification caster. Purification is really bad on Kreoss1. It kills his own upkeeps which is completely stupid and counter-productive. Especially since he doesnt have the focus to recast his upkeeps after casting Purification.
Purification might have been good if it only took down enemy upkeeps and removed continuous effects on friendly models. Which is exactly how it should work given how expensive it is to cast.
Until then its just a way worse version of Dissolution (which does only take down enemy upkeeps and it does damage too!).
But is the problem that the champ got girded or is the problem that girded isnt useful?
Seems to me that buffing girded would be an easy fix.
For example, say girded was combined with hard and prevented blast damage, collateral damage, and impact damage to both the model and models in B2B.
Its still not great, but its a substantial improvement, and one I could live with.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 6, 2018 0:02:35 GMT
Just curious W0lfBane, are you playing the Protectorate actively? Your resigned, laissez-faire tone sounds like that of someone no longer playing/enjoying the game. I understand that there are people who disapprove of PP recent track record, that this is just a game, the power of voting with your wallet, and all that jazz, but expecting garbage and just taking that garbage seems like an unusual attitude to have for what is a hobby that's supposed to be amusement. I play once a week at a minimum. I would play more often if not for school and work. Laissez-faire is just how I am. When I joined the protectorate I was very much warned about it's weaknesses and I joined in embracing them. I feel like a weakness is just as defining as a strength. In rpg games I make sure that my characters have both quality strengths and quality weaknesses. I find it makes the games and characters more interesting. And I feel a balance of weaknesses and strength add to a factions identity. Thus the recent moves of making all factions more uniform and making everything more powerful and power-creepy with few weaknesses concerns me. There has been a few recent (past year) changes that reduce my enjoyment of the game a tad and I'm concerned at the rate we're going those changes will keep stacking up and I'll have put aside all these models I'm working on. To stop that from happening I'm expressing my views with you fellows in hopes it helps. Sometimes with strong language mixed in. My apologies
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jan 6, 2018 0:05:19 GMT
Back to the original topic, assuming they something improves their speed and durability, would a rule like Bulldoze, Beat Back(+with Rapid Strike or a shield strike), or Repel be welcomed on Cinerators? They could be sent out to create or block charge lanes and clear zones. What about a variation of Fuel for the Flames?
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 6, 2018 0:14:01 GMT
Back to the original topic, assuming they something improves their speed and durability, would a rule like Bulldoze, Beat Back(+with Rapid Strike or a shield strike), or Repel be welcomed on Cinerators? They could be sent out to create or block charge lanes and clear zones. What about a variation of Fuel for the Flames? doesnt really fit them thematically flameburst, takedown, and defensive line make the most sense for cinerators since theyre often associated with Reznik, those are appropriate abilities for them I think it makes more sense to give Fuel for the Flames to the Cleanser UA.
|
|