crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389 
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 15, 2018 19:06:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by crimsyn on Feb 15, 2018 19:06:16 GMT
I also think Cavalry models shouldn’t be subject to the 50% rule for conversions, in order to allow for the use of creative conversions on mounts There is no 50% conversion rule, unless you're referring to the fact that 50% of the model by volume must be PP parts. Yes, that is what I am referring to. Since mounts are usually bigger than riders, it makes it hard to do creative mount conversions without running afoul of this rule |
|
|
|
Post by krigsol on Feb 15, 2018 19:34:47 GMT
There is no 50% conversion rule, unless you're referring to the fact that 50% of the model by volume must be PP parts. Yes, that is what I am referring to. Since mounts are usually bigger than riders, it makes it hard to do creative mount conversions without running afoul of this rule Making conversions more difficult is the point, though. The models are not customizable in the first place, they do not want players making them look significantly different from what they are supposed to be. |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Feb 15, 2018 20:07:14 GMT
Making conversions more difficult is the point, though. The models are not customizable in the first place, they do not want players making them look significantly different from what they are supposed to be. The steamroller document specifically states that they don’t want to unduly limit a player’s modelling options. The insider a couple days ago was about how one of their staffers converted his Dracodile. NQ has had conversion instructions before. The tag line for the game is literally “your army, your way.” Where are you getting the idea that PP doesn’t want their players doing conversions? If anything, through their words and actions, they’ve shown the opposite. |
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Feb 15, 2018 20:49:44 GMT
I would say through their words, absolutely. The reality is that you still can't play that dope conversion you made out of GW fantasy bits you had from way back when and some 3d printed bits, no matter how good it looks. Sculpts are still almost completely locked in (with units having some variety and the occasional alternate sculpt).
Also on the topic of the hobby side, any argument that relies on "for all people" is patently false. I know many people who hate seeing painted models because it adds in something else they have to decipher. I also know people who hate all conversions, even if they look better, because it causes confusion. I'm not saying in any way that these are the prevailing opinion, but these people exist. It is not better for ALL people.
I personally think that a better option would be for PP to provide incentive to TOs to run hobby/painting competitions in tandem with steamrollers. Make a day of it! Bring your cool models, watch or play some games, really get engrossed. Blending the two sides is only going to cause frustration (instead of unpainted models, you'll see black based models with green and brown smeared on them and called "woodland camo").
|
|
Choco
Junior Strategist
Gorten, best feet in the game.
Posts: 571
|
Post by Choco on Feb 15, 2018 21:21:56 GMT
Anyone remember Hardcore? It had a fully painted requirement. It also had the crazy 5 minute turns, but that's for a different discussion. So PP has had painting requirements in the past, but that was for a very specific type of event. They also had (for a very short time) an event where you could bring 2 lists from different factions if you so pleased. There are lots of possibilities out there, but I think they experimented enough with interesting ideas that they have figured out the best way to bring in the most players to an event; removing any painting requirements and expanding the conversion rules help out immensely. Now is a time for them to get their scenario game on point.
I personally like scenarios that are more live/active. I'm just hoping we get something a little different, maybe a new shape to one of the zones? Maybe a none balanced field of play with a circle on one side and a rectangle on the other side, maybe with a single flag in the middle? Something really wacky that is still balanced. There are so many possibilities that they could go anywhere with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 15, 2018 21:56:15 GMT
Im all for letting incorporate models score, but not contest. It’s not just Grymlin swarms. Haley3 is also a scenario monster for this reason. I’m sure grymkin players will hate that but honestly, I don’t see it being a huge issue for them in the long run. I personally dislike Recon 2, The Pit 2, And Breakdown. Breakdown is just always dead for me. The pit 2 needs to move flags to where the objectives are and move objectives to the bottom and top edge of the round zone. Recon 2 just needs to get revamped, that scenario always feels super clunky to me. Too hard to score more than your flag without overcommitting. I really like spread the net but it could be compacted more. I also really like the other scenarios, particularly standoff Good points. I can see a compromise being made on Spread the Net. You guys have reminded me that Breakdown can easily get a bit stale. I can see doing that for The Pit and then we have two scenarios that have both flags and objectives, and then Breakdown could add flags to balance the counts and liven up a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 15, 2018 21:59:15 GMT
Champions requires fully painted and I would like to see the format played somewhat more often and not just at conventions. I do prefer to see painted armies, but it's just not practical to require that for most tourneys and it's the kind of thing for which carrots serve better than sticks.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Feb 16, 2018 0:52:40 GMT
Champions requires fully painted and I would like to see the format played somewhat more often and not just at conventions. I do prefer to see painted armies, but it's just not practical to require that for most tourneys and it's the kind of thing for which carrots serve better than sticks. I’d agree. I like the fact that the Champions tournaments we’ve had around where I play do not require fully painted, but give awards/prizes to painted armies (best painted selected by vote, then one other fully painted army selected randomly gets a participation prize). The carrot works well. |
|
|
|
Post by maximumhippo on Feb 16, 2018 4:18:20 GMT
I'm sorry. That said, I still disagree on the gremlins. They're cheap, for sure and difficult to deal with by some factions. There are ways around that. Here's the thing, I'm not terribly good. Often I will look at the game and say to myself 'well, scenario is out, how can I assassinate'. Many many times, it's a 1-2% chance but it's my only real option so I go for it. That's one way around the scenario game. I realize that scenario is important to the game, but it is not and has never been the only win condition. If you're winning in every possible metric, except the damn gremlins keep getting in the way, is it that hard to go around them? Two things: 1. If you're going got a 1-2% chance assassination, that means you're failing 98-99% of the time, and therefore losing 98-99% of the time. If that's a situation that a hypothetical Grymkin player can engineer much of the time, that's a sign of imbalance (and no, I don't believe this is the case). Yes, there are 2 win conditions (3 if you count attrition), but removing one of them as a viable option weakens the effectiveness of the other two, as well. Part of the value of scenario is in forcing both players to come forward and interact with the scenario elements - either by putting stuff in the centre of the table, or by scoring their 'home' scenario elements while successfully contesting their opponent's scenario elements. If one player doesn't have to do this, or naturally does this much better, then the advantaged player typically has the ability to play much more defensively, and avoid putting their caster in a position where they can be assassinated. Can you pull off a janky, out of nowhere assassination? hell yes. I've done it many times. That doesn't mean that cutting out the opponent's ability to play scenario effectively is good for the game. 2. On a more basic level, scenario is the second tiebreaker in SR2017, which means that any faction with an innate ability to stall out scenario (and force the opponent to win mostly via assassination) has an innate advantage in SR2017. I'm not losing 99% of my games. I think after doing math we've found that the assassinations tend to be much better than I give it credit for, I digress. I don't have a consistent grymkin player locally, So I've never had to deal with more than two gremlin swarms at a time. I find that the two, while annoying are easily dealt with if they're trying to play my side of the table because if they're on my flags Stealth isn't a problem and I can divert my caster easily enough. what's interesting to me, is that you mention the scenario forcing both players to engage. The lists that I find most egregious to play against don't really even try to engage. Haley3 Gravediggers, Vlad rockets, Nemo3. The last games I played into those lists, my opponent only put enough forward to contest, and then killed so much of my stuff that I couldn't effectively clear zones or i was too busy trying not to die that clearing the zones was at best inefficient. Haley/Vlad/Nemo just chilled outside killbox, outside of threat and ground out until turn 7 or I pulled a dumb assassination play. So yes, stalling out scenario is a problem with the current packet, I think we can agree on that. Where we disagree is the cause. However i'm not sure a change to the scenario packet will solve the issues I see in the Haley3 or Vlad builds. Maybe change the order of tiebreakers? |
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 16, 2018 6:11:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by skormedlover87 on Feb 16, 2018 6:11:49 GMT
Two things: 1. If you're going got a 1-2% chance assassination, that means you're failing 98-99% of the time, and therefore losing 98-99% of the time. If that's a situation that a hypothetical Grymkin player can engineer much of the time, that's a sign of imbalance (and no, I don't believe this is the case). Yes, there are 2 win conditions (3 if you count attrition), but removing one of them as a viable option weakens the effectiveness of the other two, as well. Part of the value of scenario is in forcing both players to come forward and interact with the scenario elements - either by putting stuff in the centre of the table, or by scoring their 'home' scenario elements while successfully contesting their opponent's scenario elements. If one player doesn't have to do this, or naturally does this much better, then the advantaged player typically has the ability to play much more defensively, and avoid putting their caster in a position where they can be assassinated. Can you pull off a janky, out of nowhere assassination? hell yes. I've done it many times. That doesn't mean that cutting out the opponent's ability to play scenario effectively is good for the game. 2. On a more basic level, scenario is the second tiebreaker in SR2017, which means that any faction with an innate ability to stall out scenario (and force the opponent to win mostly via assassination) has an innate advantage in SR2017. I'm not losing 99% of my games. I think after doing math we've found that the assassinations tend to be much better than I give it credit for, I digress. I don't have a consistent grymkin player locally, So I've never had to deal with more than two gremlin swarms at a time. I find that the two, while annoying are easily dealt with if they're trying to play my side of the table because if they're on my flags Stealth isn't a problem and I can divert my caster easily enough. what's interesting to me, is that you mention the scenario forcing both players to engage. The lists that I find most egregious to play against don't really even try to engage. Haley3 Gravediggers, Vlad rockets, Nemo3. The last games I played into those lists, my opponent only put enough forward to contest, and then killed so much of my stuff that I couldn't effectively clear zones or i was too busy trying not to die that clearing the zones was at best inefficient. Haley/Vlad/Nemo just chilled outside killbox, outside of threat and ground out until turn 7 or I pulled a dumb assassination play. So yes, stalling out scenario is a problem with the current packet, I think we can agree on that. Where we disagree is the cause. However i'm not sure a change to the scenario packet will solve the issues I see in the Haley3 or Vlad builds. Maybe change the order of tiebreakers? How about a creeping killbox, where each turn after 2 the box moves forward. 2" every turn after 2 sounds ok to me. Makes casters come forward as the game winds down. |
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 16, 2018 7:28:20 GMT
Two things: 1. If you're going got a 1-2% chance assassination, that means you're failing 98-99% of the time, and therefore losing 98-99% of the time. If that's a situation that a hypothetical Grymkin player can engineer much of the time, that's a sign of imbalance (and no, I don't believe this is the case). Yes, there are 2 win conditions (3 if you count attrition), but removing one of them as a viable option weakens the effectiveness of the other two, as well. Part of the value of scenario is in forcing both players to come forward and interact with the scenario elements - either by putting stuff in the centre of the table, or by scoring their 'home' scenario elements while successfully contesting their opponent's scenario elements. If one player doesn't have to do this, or naturally does this much better, then the advantaged player typically has the ability to play much more defensively, and avoid putting their caster in a position where they can be assassinated. Can you pull off a janky, out of nowhere assassination? hell yes. I've done it many times. That doesn't mean that cutting out the opponent's ability to play scenario effectively is good for the game. 2. On a more basic level, scenario is the second tiebreaker in SR2017, which means that any faction with an innate ability to stall out scenario (and force the opponent to win mostly via assassination) has an innate advantage in SR2017. I'm not losing 99% of my games. I think after doing math we've found that the assassinations tend to be much better than I give it credit for, I digress. I don't have a consistent grymkin player locally, So I've never had to deal with more than two gremlin swarms at a time. I find that the two, while annoying are easily dealt with if they're trying to play my side of the table because if they're on my flags Stealth isn't a problem and I can divert my caster easily enough. what's interesting to me, is that you mention the scenario forcing both players to engage. The lists that I find most egregious to play against don't really even try to engage. Haley3 Gravediggers, Vlad rockets, Nemo3. The last games I played into those lists, my opponent only put enough forward to contest, and then killed so much of my stuff that I couldn't effectively clear zones or i was too busy trying not to die that clearing the zones was at best inefficient. Haley/Vlad/Nemo just chilled outside killbox, outside of threat and ground out until turn 7 or I pulled a dumb assassination play. So yes, stalling out scenario is a problem with the current packet, I think we can agree on that. Where we disagree is the cause. However i'm not sure a change to the scenario packet will solve the issues I see in the Haley3 or Vlad builds. Maybe change the order of tiebreakers? I didn't say you were losing 99% of your games, I said that banking on a low-percentage assassination (once scenario is off the table) isn't a great idea. As for the 3 lists you mentioned as being problematic... Nemo3 is intrinsically problematic. It's an absurd attrition gunline, that puts out waaaay too much damage, in ways that ignore 90% of defenses in the games. It doesn't play scenario, because it can wipe most of the opponent's list on feat turn, then mop up the rest after the fact. Nemo3, Electro-leaps, storm striders...something about that list needs a nerf. It's going to be a problem no matter the scenario packet, because it simply doesn't need to interact with scenario. Vlad1...I'm surprised you find that list problematic. It does a lot of damage at range, reliably, but it doesn't do well into extreme armor, extreme defense, or stealth (with higher armor that 13). Haley3 is one of the main offenders in terms of the 'incorporeal models contesting zones' problem I am talking about. Though in my experience, Haley3 Gravediggers doesn't sit back and shoot so much as flood the zones with tough, possibly dug in bodies, while using echoes to contest any scenario elements they can't outright control. |
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Feb 16, 2018 7:44:50 GMT
How about a creeping killbox, where each turn after 2 the box moves forward. 2" every turn after 2 sounds ok to me. Makes casters come forward as the game winds down. Let's not. That would mean the killbox would be 22" (5*2+12) from each table edge, so both caster would have to be about the mid line by turn 7? Certain casters just aren't made for that and forcing them out of the game might not be a good idea. I could see maybe 2" every other turn, so 14" turn 4, 16" turn 6. Leaping a turn would allow for some time to give your caster a safe zone maybe. |
|
Hjard
Junior Strategist
Posts: 123
|
Post by Hjard on Feb 16, 2018 8:46:11 GMT
I would like the new rules to include more terrain types for the new year. Not strictly part of the steamroller package itself, but it would be a good time to introduce some new things.
I really liked the more modest of the new terrain pieces in the No Quarter, simply because they offer something new to a part of the game that hasn't really changed in a long time (removing toeing wasn't really a change to the terrain itself).
Example? The Jack Traps from NQ#1. "Can't cross" for Jacks/Beasts, cover for infantry. So just a remix of existing terrain rules with not more or less "these models are screwed, these models are not" than already existing terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 16, 2018 9:10:17 GMT
oncomingstormI would rather see Nemo 3 toned down than the Striders or the way lightning works changed. The first change I would make is you only get the additional die if the enemy model is in his control, would make his feat a bit more risk and reward, rather than him just toeing the edge of killbox and applying his feat to everything. If that is still not enough then maybe change it to a +2 to damage as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by maximumhippo on Feb 16, 2018 9:31:26 GMT
I didn't say you were losing 99% of your games, I said that banking on a low-percentage assassination (once scenario is off the table) isn't a great idea. As for the 3 lists you mentioned as being problematic... Nemo3 is intrinsically problematic. It's an absurd attrition gunline, that puts out waaaay too much damage, in ways that ignore 90% of defenses in the games. It doesn't play scenario, because it can wipe most of the opponent's list on feat turn, then mop up the rest after the fact. Nemo3, Electro-leaps, storm striders...something about that list needs a nerf. It's going to be a problem no matter the scenario packet, because it simply doesn't need to interact with scenario. Vlad1...I'm surprised you find that list problematic. It does a lot of damage at range, reliably, but it doesn't do well into extreme armor, extreme defense, or stealth (with higher armor that 13). Haley3 is one of the main offenders in terms of the 'incorporeal models contesting zones' problem I am talking about. Though in my experience, Haley3 Gravediggers doesn't sit back and shoot so much as flood the zones with tough, possibly dug in bodies, while using echoes to contest any scenario elements they can't outright control. It's true going for jank assassinations is not a great plan, but as the aussies say, Plan Shovel. Great point on Nemo. It's 100% true that he just doesn't interact with the scenario, I like the idea of making it so enemies had to be in his control area that was suggested elsewhere, although i also like the idea of E-leaps being altered in someway... Vlad is an interesting case. I play Legion, primarily. The Vlad list that I generally encounter is the 5 heavy build (which after the CID will probably be 4 and an extra field gun). The mass stealth that I can bring can't deal with the jacks and drifting AoEs kill arm 11-12 pretty easy. The extreme armor build just doesn't exist, Thags1 double throne is about as close as it gets. Half of the 'armor' in that relies on being attacked in melee, and the rockets have that many fewer targets with the two huge bases. Extreme defense, what are we talking here? 16+? Signs and portents on RAT7 or RAT9 WG mitigates that quite well in my experience. Haley3, so the incorporeal menace is back. My experience is probably atypical. I'm seeing TLG builds with a unit of trencher infantry used as a screen/ cloudwall and usually a blockhouse as recursion for said trencher infantry. My locals might be too cautious with their trenchers? usually 3-4 come up into each zone and the rest hang back while the TLG peel everything back. Finn hangs out on a flag if possible and then the echoes themselves. For the echoes, they're a problem but, Haley herself is way more fragile than it seems and I have little if any issues with assassinating her regularly. It's my go to in that situation. Again, legion, but I can see why the cloud wall might make that a different situation though. |
|
