Fire Step
Junior Strategist
Everyday I'm Wrastlin'
Posts: 334 
|
Post by Fire Step on Feb 26, 2018 18:04:52 GMT
SR18 is live in CID.
Notable changes below
Scenario #4 Invasion: This scenario provides each player four different scoring elements, as well as a centrally placed objective that will help provide useful utility (such as Pathfinder to get through any forests in the middle of the table). Invasion battles typically involve wider army fronts meeting near the center of the board, with scenario pressure beginning in earnest when one player's flank fails to contest or meaningfully engage. Choosing the right models / units to battle in each of the three zones is vitally important.
Scenario #5 Mirage: When you set up Mirage, it will look odd at first on the table. You may think it is asymmetrical, don't worry, it is not. This scenario is potentially one of the most live scenarios ever created, with up to SIX scoring elements available to a player during a turn. That said, scoring all six elements at once means your opponent is effectively no longer playing the game. Solos and casters reign supreme in Mirage, and being able to support/defend them as they hold the flags near the center of the board is the key to victory.
Scenario #6 Recon II Update: We've made a small update to Recon II, moving the flags in each zone towards the middle of the table about 3". While this is a small change at first glance, this has definitely helped the scenario become more live, and brought it in line with the level of scenario viability we are looking to achieve.
Mirage looks really weird. I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Feb 26, 2018 18:11:05 GMT
I'm concerned that Mirage gives warcaster units (Haley3, Coven) a large advantage out of the gate. I also predict that scenario will increase the moaning about incorporeal solos to brand new heights.
|
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Feb 26, 2018 18:32:25 GMT
I'm concerned that Mirage gives warcaster units (Haley3, Coven) a large advantage out of the gate. I also predict that scenario will increase the moaning about incorporeal solos to brand new heights. Yeah Mirage desperately needs to change. Its way to exploitable right now |
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Feb 26, 2018 18:55:47 GMT
I'm concerned that Mirage gives warcaster units (Haley3, Coven) a large advantage out of the gate. I also predict that scenario will increase the moaning about incorporeal solos to brand new heights. Yeah Mirage desperately needs to change. Its way to exploitable right now Considering with Magnus2 I can have 5 heavies at the midline top of turn1.. then pop feat turn2 and say "don't you dare" scoring 3-4 points on my opponents turn bottom of 2 then just auto win on my top of turn 3? |
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Feb 26, 2018 18:57:38 GMT
meh, scenarios are the least interesting thing in the package. The true thing that´s exciting is the true Limited Format for Champions! Limited Casters, Limited Themes, no painting requirements! ADR selection that makes sense.  It's like all my hypothesis regarding faction balance and the Themepocalypse are being proven  |
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Feb 26, 2018 19:04:54 GMT
meh, scenarios are the least interesting thing in the package. The true thing that´s exciting is the true Limited Format for Champions! Limited Casters, Limited Themes, no painting requirements! ADR selection that makes sense. It's like all my hypothesis regarding faction balance and the Themepocalypse are being proven The current proposed format for Champions is crappy. CoC is gonna just roll over everyone. Some factions are even excluded from playing their own models ( mercs current cycle requires you to play Cygnar/PoM units) |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 26, 2018 19:14:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by crimsyn on Feb 26, 2018 19:14:23 GMT
So far not thrilled. I was hoping for some changes to the conversion policy to amenable and encourage more cool conversions, but they made it clear that that is something in the SR packet that they aren’t considering and don’t want to discuss.
Also, I feel like they are moving in the wrong direction with the painting requirements. I feel like if they take it off Champions to make it a more new player friendly format, they should put it back onto SR and/or Masters.
Haven’t looked at the ADR or scenarios yet in great detail so I can’t say what my opinion is on them; feels like they are moving in the direction of very live scenarios like spread the net though.
|
|
SeBM
Junior Strategist
Posts: 102
|
Post by SeBM on Feb 26, 2018 20:09:46 GMT
Eeew Champion is a good idea but bad execution. Restricting themes is so stupid. I want to like the format, but it is so restrictive and my factions is already so restrictive that combining both is terrible.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Feb 26, 2018 20:17:49 GMT
Eeew Champion is a good idea but bad execution. Restricting themes is so stupid. I want to like the format, but it is so restrictive and my factions is already so restrictive that combining both is terrible. I think either NO THEMES or just a "both lists can't be the same theme" would be the proper route to restrict people yet encourage creative thinking in list creation. We all know if this goes through as proposed it will turn out as each forum finding the optimal pairing and 90% of the field using it. I know for Ret it would likely be Elara2 Halbs/AFG + Rahn Forges. I wouldn't enjoy going to a con and seeing every single person in my faction playing the exact same shit. With no themes allowed you could see some really creative stuff come out of the woodwork and it would be unlikely to see two people with the exact same lists. |
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Feb 26, 2018 20:24:28 GMT
Eeew Champion is a good idea but bad execution. Restricting themes is so stupid. I want to like the format, but it is so restrictive and my factions is already so restrictive that combining both is terrible. I think either NO THEMES or just a "both lists can't be the same theme" would be the proper route to restrict people yet encourage creative thinking in list creation. We all know if this goes through as proposed it will turn out as each forum finding the optimal pairing and 90% of the field using it. I know for Ret it would likely be Elara2 Halbs/AFG + Rahn Forges. I wouldn't enjoy going to a con and seeing every single person in my faction playing the exact same shit. With no themes allowed you could see some really creative stuff come out of the woodwork and it would be unlikely to see two people with the exact same lists. But they want it to be more "Limited" I agree with you 100% though, Limiting themes is a bad call. Especially if they do silly things like put Kaya 3 in the ADR with only access to bones and Devo Host... |
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Feb 26, 2018 20:32:43 GMT
I think either NO THEMES or just a "both lists can't be the same theme" would be the proper route to restrict people yet encourage creative thinking in list creation. We all know if this goes through as proposed it will turn out as each forum finding the optimal pairing and 90% of the field using it. I know for Ret it would likely be Elara2 Halbs/AFG + Rahn Forges. I wouldn't enjoy going to a con and seeing every single person in my faction playing the exact same shit. With no themes allowed you could see some really creative stuff come out of the woodwork and it would be unlikely to see two people with the exact same lists. But they want it to be more "Limited" I agree with you 100% though, Limiting themes is a bad call. Especially if they do silly things like put Kaya 3 in the ADR with only access to bones and Devo Host... The only thing "limited" about the current proposal is the future turnout for champions events. Faction who get a lucky ADR will all show up with their broken shit ( like the current proposed COC stuff) and people in factions who draw the short straw just wont show up. It won't be more fun, it won't spark creativity, it won't be engaging... it will be "what are the top 4 factions this ADR cycle and what's the optimal pair in those factions and everyone else gets Firetrucked". I was cool with having to buy a new caster here or there to compete in a champions event for a con i plan on attending but I can't see myself going out and buying into a subfaction of mercs I don't care for and don't want to play with 2-3 months notice to participate in one event a year. I'm not gonna buy two trencher units to play kingmaker, im not gonnna buy 2 non merc units to play lael on a caster i don't normally want to play, im not gonna bu talion stuff to play one even, or cephalix... ill just sit out an entire day at the con and roam the halls to find another game that actually allows people the play the models they want to instead of trying to force us into a cookie cutter. |
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Feb 26, 2018 21:14:06 GMT
You guys need to turn down the hyperbole on Champions.
First, the aim of the new Champions is to have even ground between casters and themes each season. There is no "getting lucky", the Dev Team should be picking choices that are compelling and don't brake the format. Notice that Ghost Fleet is not even part of the first Season?
Second, so what if people arrive at "optimals" within weeks? It's a 6 month season, how many Champion events are there in a 6 Month period? I would say that 1 per month is optimistic, and when 6 months are up it changes.
Also, Mercs having to use Cygnar/Menoth is such a non argument that it's laughable. You can still use the old merc units, and the new cross faction units still count as mercs.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Feb 26, 2018 21:21:13 GMT
You guys need to turn down the hyperbole on Champions. First, the aim of the new Champions is to have even ground between casters and themes each season. There is no "getting lucky", the Dev Team should be picking choices that are compelling and don't brake the format. Notice that Ghost Fleet is not even part of the first Season? Second, so what if people arrive at "optimals" within weeks? It's a 6 month season, how many Champion events are there in a 6 Month period? I would say that 1 per month is optimistic, and when 6 months are up it changes. Also, Mercs having to use Cygnar/Menoth is such a non argument that it's laughable. You can still use the old merc units, and the new cross faction units still count as mercs. There is no hyperbole, they came up with a shit idea and I'm calling them out on it. |
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Feb 26, 2018 21:30:10 GMT
Yeah, between CID cycles, nerf cycles, model release cycles we have enough trouble with keeping up as is. Introducing another random constraint on lists is a bad idea even before we start comparing playability of allowed stuff between factions (and, oh boy, does it differ wildly, good luck ever balancing that out).
This is not a computer game where you can switch things around each week and no one will bat an eye.
|
|
Hjard
Junior Strategist
Posts: 123
|
Post by Hjard on Feb 27, 2018 7:03:03 GMT
It's a 6 month season, how many Champion events are there in a 6 Month period? Something around 0 It's a format that is basically non existent outside the US. As there are no Champions events to play in, nobody practises for them. Which means that when one pops up it get's no attendance, since nobody is prepared for it. Meaning TOs won't set up Champions in the future, so even less people prepare for them etc etc. |
|
