Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 26, 2018 23:50:42 GMT
I have some ideas about how to standardize and streamline theme force design that would make them less restrictive and more fair overall. I did come up with this idea in tandem with the other one about BG points and I think they could work well together.
1) Merc Inclusion would be the same for all themes unless they need to make an exception for specific reasons to keep the theme balanced or functioning the way it's supposed to. Thus most themes would simply say "Merc Inclusion: Standard," while you might see something vaguely like "Minion Inclusion: As Standard, plus Meat Thresher Battle Engines" or "Merc Inclusion: One non-character unit and/or one character solo" at some point. Secret Masters and DOA would say "Minion Inclusion: Special (see below)" and go into their exceptions as they do now. (While I'm thinking about it, Cygnar should have its own similar "half-merc" theme called "Hired Guns.")
2) Freebies would not depend upon the types of models in your particular list build. You would get one freebie for a 0-point game, two for a 25-point game, three for a 50-point game, four for a 75-point game, and three for each 50-point sub-list in Unbound. How many points you spent on warbeasts, units, or specific subtypes of units would not matter. This combined with giving casters more battlegroup points would mean that we'd see more jacks and beasts and more lists that are half & half like those WGK lists that caught my eye. Units and solos have the scenario system and greater efficiency in contesting zones to keep them relevant. Battle engines have enough advantages. :P
This also ends the "I only have 59 points of units" obnoxiousness. If I want my Kriel Company list to be half warbeasts and my POD list to be half Runeshapers, I should be able to do that without penalty. Same for merc inclusion. If I want to pay 19 points for a full unit of Brigands and Warlord I should be able to do that without sweating anything beyond FF issues. And I'm not going to put half a dozen Juggernauts in every single Khador list because MOW and Doom Reavers are compelling on their own, especially when theme benefits usually encourage units more than beasts and jacks and I have scenarios to contend with. This would also help poor Horthol and others in the same sad spot, as the only reason he doesn't see play is that he doesn't count toward freebies.
There are, of course, odd cases like Dark Menagerie and Black Industries. It's just a matter of getting the math right. DM might simply give two picks per 25 points. Heavy Metal and Irregulars would have the same number of freebies in the same size of game as Dark Host and Storm of the North, so that helps too.
(To be clear, I'd like to see official game sizes set in 25-point increments, ideally including new starters with complete 25-point armies for less than $100.)
3) Freebies would be limited to models and units of point cost 5 or lower, with very few exceptions, like Black Industries, and even there, I can see a case for 5-point Deathrippers and Defilers. Still, if it's too strong to cost 5 points, then it's too strong to be a freebie. I can maybe see raising this limit to 6, but probably not and certainly no higher. At the same time, I can also see lowering the point costs of some models like the Dhunian Knot just so they could fit, but probably not the Hellmouth. Regardless, it would help to have a clear standard of what is just too strong to be a freebie, and we don't have to keep going "Oh wait, don't let them have a dragoon for free," every time there's a new theme.
4) "Deployment Bonus" and "Gameplay Bonus" would be defined, if only so you can ask "What's your deployment bonus?" and I can say "+1 to go first" or "the snow drifts." However, there's no law that says that every theme absolutely must have a deployment bonus. There might be a theme someday that only has gameplay bonuses.
5) Playing in a theme absolutely should be the standard, at least for tournament play. We've been over this thirty times, and I'm not rehashing it now. I do NOT want to see this thread immediately derailed with five pages of "Themes are bad, cuz... themes are bad, mmkay?" I would seriously delete such posts here if I could.
That said, I am not completely opposed to throwing a bone to anyone who insists on not playing in-theme, as long as that is still clearly less powerful without some specific combo, the likes of which are rare. Again, this is deliberate, for several reasons, and it is not going to change. We can probably spot you 5 points, just to keep it simple. Theoretically, we could even introduce a point cost for themes, where the strongest cost 5 points and the weakest cost 2. It's just that neither option scales with the size of the game. Another possibility is +1 to go first, but that feels a bit too strong for this.
Here's an example of a templated format for a theme in this design:
Storm of the North
(fluff)
Composition
This army may include:
-Trollblood warlocks
-Non-character warbeasts and Rok
-Champion models/units
-Long Rider models/units
-Northkin models/units
-Krielstone Bearer & Stone Scribe units
-Kriel Warrior units
-Fell Caller Hero solos
-Trollkin Runebearer solos
-Troll Whelp solos
Minion Inclusion: Standard
Freebies: Standard: Add one Trollblood command attachment or solo
Deployment Bonus: "Before models are deployed at the start of the game, you may place two 4" AOE snowdrift terrain features..."
Gameplay Bonuses:
a) Non-Warlock Trollblood warrior models in this army become Northkin and gain Immunity: cold.
b) Warlocks in this army can upkeep spells on friendly Northkin models/units without spending fury.
If nothing else, this cuts down on repeating those standards once they are defined in one place, as they really are the same for most themes.
Regardless, I think that these changes would, on the whole, make list building a lot easier and better able to adapt to not only the meta but the preferences of different players. I'm not saying that all themes must be structured exactly the same way. I like the weird ones like WWFF and DOA, and I really do think that Hired Guns is a good idea. I think that these changes still leave plenty of room for those.
And no, I don't have every detail figured out, but I do think that this is generally the way to go. I think it solves a lot of problems and would make a good plank in a larger platform of streamlining the things that can be streamlined and reducing barriers to entry.
1) Merc Inclusion would be the same for all themes unless they need to make an exception for specific reasons to keep the theme balanced or functioning the way it's supposed to. Thus most themes would simply say "Merc Inclusion: Standard," while you might see something vaguely like "Minion Inclusion: As Standard, plus Meat Thresher Battle Engines" or "Merc Inclusion: One non-character unit and/or one character solo" at some point. Secret Masters and DOA would say "Minion Inclusion: Special (see below)" and go into their exceptions as they do now. (While I'm thinking about it, Cygnar should have its own similar "half-merc" theme called "Hired Guns.")
2) Freebies would not depend upon the types of models in your particular list build. You would get one freebie for a 0-point game, two for a 25-point game, three for a 50-point game, four for a 75-point game, and three for each 50-point sub-list in Unbound. How many points you spent on warbeasts, units, or specific subtypes of units would not matter. This combined with giving casters more battlegroup points would mean that we'd see more jacks and beasts and more lists that are half & half like those WGK lists that caught my eye. Units and solos have the scenario system and greater efficiency in contesting zones to keep them relevant. Battle engines have enough advantages. :P
This also ends the "I only have 59 points of units" obnoxiousness. If I want my Kriel Company list to be half warbeasts and my POD list to be half Runeshapers, I should be able to do that without penalty. Same for merc inclusion. If I want to pay 19 points for a full unit of Brigands and Warlord I should be able to do that without sweating anything beyond FF issues. And I'm not going to put half a dozen Juggernauts in every single Khador list because MOW and Doom Reavers are compelling on their own, especially when theme benefits usually encourage units more than beasts and jacks and I have scenarios to contend with. This would also help poor Horthol and others in the same sad spot, as the only reason he doesn't see play is that he doesn't count toward freebies.
There are, of course, odd cases like Dark Menagerie and Black Industries. It's just a matter of getting the math right. DM might simply give two picks per 25 points. Heavy Metal and Irregulars would have the same number of freebies in the same size of game as Dark Host and Storm of the North, so that helps too.
(To be clear, I'd like to see official game sizes set in 25-point increments, ideally including new starters with complete 25-point armies for less than $100.)
3) Freebies would be limited to models and units of point cost 5 or lower, with very few exceptions, like Black Industries, and even there, I can see a case for 5-point Deathrippers and Defilers. Still, if it's too strong to cost 5 points, then it's too strong to be a freebie. I can maybe see raising this limit to 6, but probably not and certainly no higher. At the same time, I can also see lowering the point costs of some models like the Dhunian Knot just so they could fit, but probably not the Hellmouth. Regardless, it would help to have a clear standard of what is just too strong to be a freebie, and we don't have to keep going "Oh wait, don't let them have a dragoon for free," every time there's a new theme.
4) "Deployment Bonus" and "Gameplay Bonus" would be defined, if only so you can ask "What's your deployment bonus?" and I can say "+1 to go first" or "the snow drifts." However, there's no law that says that every theme absolutely must have a deployment bonus. There might be a theme someday that only has gameplay bonuses.
5) Playing in a theme absolutely should be the standard, at least for tournament play. We've been over this thirty times, and I'm not rehashing it now. I do NOT want to see this thread immediately derailed with five pages of "Themes are bad, cuz... themes are bad, mmkay?" I would seriously delete such posts here if I could.
That said, I am not completely opposed to throwing a bone to anyone who insists on not playing in-theme, as long as that is still clearly less powerful without some specific combo, the likes of which are rare. Again, this is deliberate, for several reasons, and it is not going to change. We can probably spot you 5 points, just to keep it simple. Theoretically, we could even introduce a point cost for themes, where the strongest cost 5 points and the weakest cost 2. It's just that neither option scales with the size of the game. Another possibility is +1 to go first, but that feels a bit too strong for this.
Here's an example of a templated format for a theme in this design:
Storm of the North
(fluff)
Composition
This army may include:
-Trollblood warlocks
-Non-character warbeasts and Rok
-Champion models/units
-Long Rider models/units
-Northkin models/units
-Krielstone Bearer & Stone Scribe units
-Kriel Warrior units
-Fell Caller Hero solos
-Trollkin Runebearer solos
-Troll Whelp solos
Minion Inclusion: Standard
Freebies: Standard: Add one Trollblood command attachment or solo
Deployment Bonus: "Before models are deployed at the start of the game, you may place two 4" AOE snowdrift terrain features..."
Gameplay Bonuses:
a) Non-Warlock Trollblood warrior models in this army become Northkin and gain Immunity: cold.
b) Warlocks in this army can upkeep spells on friendly Northkin models/units without spending fury.
If nothing else, this cuts down on repeating those standards once they are defined in one place, as they really are the same for most themes.
Regardless, I think that these changes would, on the whole, make list building a lot easier and better able to adapt to not only the meta but the preferences of different players. I'm not saying that all themes must be structured exactly the same way. I like the weird ones like WWFF and DOA, and I really do think that Hired Guns is a good idea. I think that these changes still leave plenty of room for those.
And no, I don't have every detail figured out, but I do think that this is generally the way to go. I think it solves a lot of problems and would make a good plank in a larger platform of streamlining the things that can be streamlined and reducing barriers to entry.