|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 16, 2018 9:44:11 GMT
oncomingstorm I 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. Those would be sensible changes. I could see them doing either (or both) to Nemo3. The first change would at least open up an assassination gameplan against him, would take away some of the extreme range of his threat ranges (one of the dodgiest tricks for electro leaps being how you can functionally extend the range of any e-leap gun by 6") and would make it just another 'Ossyan feat'. I'll be honest, I play Krueger2 in nearly every pairing, because A) Firetruck Nemo3, and B) our local Cygnar player is one of the best Nemo3 players in the world. (also, C), Krueger2 is an amazing and sorely underrated caster, but that's beside the point) I dunno, though. I think Electro-leaps aren't a well-formulated rule in general. Electro-leaping off of lightning immune models (blah blah, fluff blah, I know), ignoring LOS, obstructions, forests, w/e, not being considered an attack...they ignore too many things, IMO. And lest I be accused of bias, Circle has easily the second most access to Electro-leaps in the game. As to Haley3...again, I can typically deal with her. Krueger2 handles most of her list pretty well (windstorm, lightning storm), and as you say, she's often vulnerable to assassination. Lynus and Edrea are constantly on the edge of making my list, partially because of her. I think that the way that she can stall out scenario, as well as buff her army, and contribute personally (once saw baby Haley take more than half the boxes off a colossal) is over the top, and the echoes are big part of that. |
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Feb 16, 2018 10:19:24 GMT
What WMH needs is a analogue of "peon" rule from Malifaux, which basically means model doesn't score.
A lot of created and cheap throwaway models should have it to limit their effectiveness. Currently created free solo, 4+pt solo, 1pt solo all have same scoring impact which leads to abuse of said cheap/free models in scenarios with lots of elements.
I would actually not include models that you pay resources or points for in this rule like Haley echoes or recursion targets. Free whelps from MK, free servitors from TEP, Alexia1 thralls, 1pt solos, etc. is what should be limited.
Maybe limit it to exactly scoring and leaving those models to be able to contest normally.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 16, 2018 10:25:15 GMT
What WMH needs is a analogue of "peon" rule from Malifaux, which basically means model doesn't score. A lot of created and cheap throwaway models should have it to limit their effectiveness. Currently created free solo, 4+pt solo, 1pt solo all have same scoring impact which leads to abuse of said cheap/free models in scenarios with lots of elements. Maybe limit it to exactly scoring and leaving those models to be able to contest normally. I can see where you are coming from, I have played against the dreamer a fair bit recently, and the Phantasms are bullshit of the highest order.
However I fear we run the risk of trying to nerf things just because they are powerful, it's fine to have powerful things in this game, and having to come up with answers is the whole point
|
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 16, 2018 10:43:28 GMT
What WMH needs is a analogue of "peon" rule from Malifaux, which basically means model doesn't score. A lot of created and cheap throwaway models should have it to limit their effectiveness. Currently created free solo, 4+pt solo, 1pt solo all have same scoring impact which leads to abuse of said cheap/free models in scenarios with lots of elements. I would actually not include models that you pay resources or points for in this rule like Haley echoes or recursion targets. Free whelps from MK, free servitors from TEP, Alexia1 thralls, 1pt solos, etc. is what should be limited. Maybe limit it to exactly scoring and leaving those models to be able to contest normally. Honestly, I'm much more concerned about contesting than scoring. If more models can contest than score, you're creating a slower scenario environment where scoring is more difficult, and allowing lists to get away with barely interacting with scenario much more easily. And Haley Echoes should definitely be on any list of models that cannot contest. |
|
|
|
Post by flamigant on Feb 16, 2018 16:22:04 GMT
Incorporeal models cannot contest but can score, problem solved.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548 
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 16, 2018 16:38:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by gordo on Feb 16, 2018 16:38:31 GMT
Incorporeal models cannot contest but can score, problem solved. I actually really like that. |
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 18, 2018 16:03:41 GMT
I would like to see some change that decreases the importance of the roll for going first. This roll dictates too much in SR2018 in my opinion and I don't remember it having tat much of an impact in earlier versions that I played.
Going first or second makes too much difference for too many armies and scenarios, while it should be balanced IMO. The disadvantages of going first don't seem that problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 18, 2018 19:36:56 GMT
I would like to see some change that decreases the importance of the roll for going first. This roll dictates too much in SR2018 in my opinion and I don't remember it having tat much of an impact in earlier versions that I played. Going first or second makes too much difference for too many armies and scenarios, while it should be balanced IMO. The disadvantages of going first don't seem that problematic. If you're right, I don't know how to fix that. 7 inches for the 1st player to deploy is already very tight for many lists. The 2nd player gets to deploy reactively, pick the table side, and score first. What else could reasonably be done? |
|
|
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 18, 2018 19:40:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 18, 2018 19:40:59 GMT
I would like to see some change that decreases the importance of the roll for going first. This roll dictates too much in SR2018 in my opinion and I don't remember it having tat much of an impact in earlier versions that I played. Going first or second makes too much difference for too many armies and scenarios, while it should be balanced IMO. The disadvantages of going first don't seem that problematic. If you're right, I don't know how to fix that. 7 inches for the 1st player to deploy is already very tight for many lists. The 2nd player gets to deploy reactively, pick the table side, and score first. What else could reasonably be done? Maybe roll a dice after setup and on a 6 the player seizes the initiative, fun and fluffy right?  |
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 18, 2018 19:46:26 GMT
I would like to see some change that decreases the importance of the roll for going first. This roll dictates too much in SR2018 in my opinion and I don't remember it having tat much of an impact in earlier versions that I played. Going first or second makes too much difference for too many armies and scenarios, while it should be balanced IMO. The disadvantages of going first don't seem that problematic. If you're right, I don't know how to fix that. 7 inches for the 1st player to deploy is already very tight for many lists. The 2nd player gets to deploy reactively, pick the table side, and score first. What else could reasonably be done? I think decreasing the ease of contesting would probably make it more useful to go second. Currently, there are too many easy ways to stick a created/incorporeal model on the far scenario elements, and prevent the 2nd player from scoring on their second turn (which is the main advantage of going second, IMO). Alternatively, you could: 1. change the deployment zones to 6"/11" to make going second less of an awful disadvantage in terms of setting the line of battle. 2. Have unbalanced scenarios with an additional scoring element on one side (or an extra enemy objective) making the choice of sides more meaningful. Just off the cuff. There ARE options for reducing the importance of the roll for first turn. |
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 18, 2018 23:41:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by skormedlover87 on Feb 18, 2018 23:41:43 GMT
Second player could start with 1 control point automatically. That could help.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Feb 19, 2018 3:47:17 GMT
It would be hard to reduce first players deployment zone. 7" means a huge base with a large base hiding behind, and while thats an unusual situation making the deployment zone any smaller negates what I think should be a reasonable deployment.
|
|
Fire Step
Junior Strategist
Everyday I'm Wrastlin'
Posts: 334
|
Post by Fire Step on Feb 19, 2018 9:28:43 GMT
I've noticed that unless you've got some native speed buffs that some lists simply cannot cut it in SR17. From a purely Protectorate perspective, casters like Sev1 & 2, Tristan2, all favour slower battlegroups, limiting their scoring and contesting ability, as well as losing out an giving any sort of alpha. As a result I really haven't used a huge chunk of protectorate for that reason alone. I transitioned from playing the slower 70% of the faction to the faster 30% - centring around 3 warcasters - Vindictus, Thyra, Amon, and cavalry.
It's really been pressed hard this weekend just how you can't afford to give away the alpha. In a world where Rask in WWFF exists (as an example), speed 4 and 5 models with an inch reach simply don't cut the mustard.
If there was a way to bring the scenario zones in a tad tighter to offset this, it'd be easier to compete for different areas of the factions who might not be seeing play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 19, 2018 15:40:09 GMT
I've noticed that unless you've got some native speed buffs that some lists simply cannot cut it in SR17. From a purely Protectorate perspective, casters like Sev1 & 2, Tristan2, all favour slower battlegroups, limiting their scoring and contesting ability, as well as losing out an giving any sort of alpha. As a result I really haven't used a huge chunk of protectorate for that reason alone. I transitioned from playing the slower 70% of the faction to the faster 30% - centring around 3 warcasters - Vindictus, Thyra, Amon, and cavalry. It's really been pressed hard this weekend just how you can't afford to give away the alpha. In a world where Rask in WWFF exists (as an example), speed 4 and 5 models with an inch reach simply don't cut the mustard. If there was a way to bring the scenario zones in a tad tighter to offset this, it'd be easier to compete for different areas of the factions who might not be seeing play. I can see what you mean. Even Power of Dhunia can struggle there, and then its best showings listed on Discount Games within the last year are with Ragnor, Borka 2, and Doomy 3 (run in and feat so you CAN take the alpha) and also Gunny and Doomy 2 (hit first). |
|
|
|
Post by grabsnikk on Feb 21, 2018 9:51:35 GMT
Incorporeal models cannot contest but can score, problem solved. I actually really like that. That seems completely fair, would make sense when you think about how they can't be affected by non magical attacks and how they can't make freestrikes or block movement while incorporeal. They would still have a place as they could still score flags with ease. |
|
