|
Post by deathbymelancholy on Oct 31, 2019 11:48:14 GMT
Trolls are a support bloat faction. Stone, Runebearer, Dhunian Archon (barf), Dhunian Knot. I would much prefer to see these support tools get rolled into models that do work. I don't think that ever happens though.
I don't know how to get away from Runebearer when he is needed (which is often), but I too am a min stone almost exclusively, and not at all if I can. I avoid Knot by playing bricks in anything but PoD since it is such a weak theme anyways. Same with the Archon (I hate her anyways, but that's personal opinion) being in PoD. If it is fighting for a Merc slot then it's going to lose....generally.
But even those models aside. We want Far Strike a lot, minimum 11 points (impaler). We need more speed, minimum 10 points (axer). Too hit harder, minimum 14 points (mauler). Well, there's 35 BG points and probably not the loadout I ACTUALLY want.
And honestly, our solo selection is pretty weak by and large. Although we have good ones, nothing to compare to Warmachine Archons, or some of the combat solos in Menoth and Circle. the faction identity (good, bad, or indifferent) is buff LAYERING, which just is not as valuable in todays supersolo unsupported greatness meta, whether that's granted by faction association or theme benefit.
I believe North is our best, most well rounded. BoH is necessary but honestly, one niche' theme benefit? C'mon, it's not that great. KC might be turning into something but has been middling to bad for a long time, and PoD (for me) has never offered anything I couldn't build better in Storm.
We have some darn fine Warlocks though, if people care to reach out and explore them.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Oct 31, 2019 16:16:45 GMT
Trolls are a support bloat faction. Stone, Runebearer, Dhunian Archon (barf), Dhunian Knot. I would much prefer to see these support tools get rolled into models that do work. I don't think that ever happens though. I don't know how to get away from Runebearer when he is needed (which is often), but I too am a min stone almost exclusively, and not at all if I can. I avoid Knot by playing bricks in anything but PoD since it is such a weak theme anyways. Same with the Archon (I hate her anyways, but that's personal opinion) being in PoD. If it is fighting for a Merc slot then it's going to lose....generally. But even those models aside. We want Far Strike a lot, minimum 11 points (impaler). We need more speed, minimum 10 points (axer). Too hit harder, minimum 14 points (mauler). Well, there's 35 BG points and probably not the loadout I ACTUALLY want. And honestly, our solo selection is pretty weak by and large. Although we have good ones, nothing to compare to Warmachine Archons, or some of the combat solos in Menoth and Circle. the faction identity (good, bad, or indifferent) is buff LAYERING, which just is not as valuable in todays supersolo unsupported greatness meta, whether that's granted by faction association or theme benefit. I believe North is our best, most well rounded. BoH is necessary but honestly, one niche' theme benefit? C'mon, it's not that great. KC might be turning into something but has been middling to bad for a long time, and PoD (for me) has never offered anything I couldn't build better in Storm. We have some darn fine Warlocks though, if people care to reach out and explore them. I would actually prefer it if support models were given more powerful abilities and continue to see use rather than becoming obsolete by merging, I think that'd help trolls stay more distinct. If the buffs aren't good enough, giving trolls supersolos to compete in the arms race rather than making the buffs better or more accessible would be a mistake imo. Also, I like the archon. Martyrdom has been long overdue for trolls, and a solo that grants it is even better. A bit salty about the merc slot though.
|
|
|
Post by deathbymelancholy on Oct 31, 2019 16:44:41 GMT
I mean, buff what we have is fine for the support stuff. I wasn't saying we need new stuff to compensate. But currently it takes too many individual units (points investment) to get to the power levels that more and more models are just granted out of the box. I'm happy to layer, but maybe layer 3 instead of five?
And I understand my deep seated loathing of the Dhunian Archon is personal. ya'll do what you want with it.
|
|
|
Post by anoddman on Oct 31, 2019 18:29:51 GMT
I mean, buff what we have is fine for the support stuff. I wasn't saying we need new stuff to compensate. But currently it takes too many individual units (points investment) to get to the power levels that more and more models are just granted out of the box. I'm happy to layer, but maybe layer 3 instead of five? And I understand my deep seated loathing of the Dhunian Archon is personal. ya'll do what you want with it. Not arguing necessarily, but I see that talking point a lot that we need to pay points for buffs to get to where other models are natively. Aside from, say, the dregs of Kriel Company or the worst of our lights which are in dire need of a CID, do you have an example of this? My tone is not combative, but curious (Sorry, I find I need to include this footnote more and more on the internet)
|
|
|
Post by robbleyourworld on Oct 31, 2019 19:23:07 GMT
I feel like trolls are built around layering support and to reduce the amount we need is inherently against what trolls are supposed to be. I personally don't hate the support but I don't think trolls need more pure support pieces.
What I see trolls problems are on a several different fronts: current scenario, current meta, tough tax, troll stat lines, our lists failing to ask a question, and troll players rarely stepping out of comfort zones.
So the issues with the current scenario packets have been discussed a lot but Trolls traditionally like to play in a brick and the current scenario packet just doesn't support that playstyle well.
Some of the current meta's boogeymen really just poop on trolls (harbinger) and we don't have great answers to some of the best factions because of that. Along with that other factions are doing the *tough* thing better than we do so people are bringing really solid answers to tough so one of the defining characteristics of the faction has been neutered.
Tough tax... I hate tough as a rule. I dislike it for a couple of reasons one is because rarely are both players happy with the outcomes from it and second it seems to make our pieces disproportionately expensive to their other stats. When tough is working and you're on a good tough run (which happen) your opponent is pissed on the opposite side when tough is failing (I'm fairly certain I've never made a tough check with the SoB) the troll player is sitting there frustrated that they paid extra points for a rule that never quite works right. In some ways I get why tough models need to be priced more for the possibility that they just never die but man sometimes our models feel so expensive.
Part of the reason they feel so expensive is because they have troll stats. Trolls seem to be built around taking a punch and then clobbering their opponent. However their survivability is on the low end for tough (not the rule) lists that are floating out there. Additionally since the faction seems to be built around hitting second and winning the attrition battle up close they're generally slow so what ends up happening is we get hit first. Our survivability cracks (because everyone is building around dealing with even more survivable armies like menoth, skorne, and tharn) and we start losing the attrition battle.
While I don't really care if trolls are a "top" faction what is apparent from those that appear to be at the top end of the power curve is they have lists that ask questions. By that I mean you need to have an answer to Harbinger, Rasheth, immortals, tharn, Scary Gary and Dawnmowers or you'll end up having some very bad games. Trolls, along with several other factions, don't have lists that really ask those tough questions. This is probably fine for me but its also why we're on the lower end of the power curve.
One of the things I really think holds trolls back from doing well at large events is what appears to be a complete lack of imagination on how to build trolls. Why are people still playing Kolgrima SotN and Madrak1 BoH or SotN as their pair? That pair has been around for years so people know how to play against it and neither of those lists are like Harbinger who presents a hard enough question to warrant continued inclusion at high level play. people need to think outside of the box and honestly trolls being on the low end of the power curve is a great excuse to snowflake hard just to have fun with random crap.
I've to ramble a bit but mostly what I see going on in trolls is a scenario packet that's particularly unfriendly to trolls, over costed models with poor stat lines due to tough, a survivability level that's outclassed by other factions, no lists asking a hard question, and troll players being unwilling to try weird stuff. Something I didn't mention is the clear power creep that's occurred due to updates to other factions which have left trolls behind.
As far as "fixing" trolls, the easy way (and most likely) will be for trolls to get an update and receive overtuned models that force us into 2 or 3 lists for a few months or years. I would prefer point or stat adjustments to some models to re-evaluate the value of tough. My least realistic response but my favorite response is for them to dial back other factions, the issue feels less about trolls being bad but rather they've over tuned certain models in some factions which has negatively impacted trolls and their ability to compete.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Oct 31, 2019 20:04:52 GMT
The level of power creep CiD has been causing over the years really seems like pure cancer to me. Power creep can be a good thing, it can help drive the game forward and prevent meta stagnation, but the way it is now most factions seem to have one or two viable lists, and not even every faction has a competitive list, so they're just kind of left to dry until the next CiD comes around and the new ball busting toy comes out.
I also wish PP would either pump every underpowered model the Firetruck up and create a format where everything is stupid strong (and as a result nobody's that strong, actually), or they dial everything back a bit. I mentioned it in another thread, I think, but if you shift the numbers across the board, you end up getting very similar results. the only thing that really matters is threat ranges - speed and reach.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Oct 31, 2019 20:15:47 GMT
I think the biggest thing hurting troll players is the troll meta. They have so many interesting options but the lists usually boil down to buff stone, march up. And even at that point at rnd 3 when the buff stone unit is not even necessary to keep around and should be tossed away as a piece trade unit, they usually are the last ones standing.
|
|
|
Post by robbleyourworld on Oct 31, 2019 20:45:40 GMT
The level of power creep CiD has been causing over the years really seems like pure cancer to me. Power creep can be a good thing, it can help drive the game forward and prevent meta stagnation, but the way it is now most factions seem to have one or two viable lists, and not even every faction has a competitive list, so they're just kind of left to dry until the next CiD comes around and the new ball busting toy comes out. I also wish PP would either pump every underpowered model the Firetruck up and create a format where everything is stupid strong (and as a result nobody's that strong, actually), or they dial everything back a bit. I mentioned it in another thread, I think, but if you shift the numbers across the board, you end up getting very similar results. the only thing that really matters is threat ranges - speed and reach. The CID process is interesting and on paper seems like a great idea. Unfortunately what we've discovered (perhaps unsurprisingly) is that those involved are often quite biased (usually players of the factions being tested) and as such view the models and changes being tested as being worse than they really are and try to push them to become better. The devs (through virtue of being human) are susceptible to that feedback and even if they originally think something is too good they're likely to shift their opinion simply by regular exposure to the idea of it and we get overtuned models. Also when looking at things in a bubble like CID we often don't see why things are actually too powerful. I think the biggest thing hurting troll players is the troll meta. They have so many interesting options but the lists usually boil down to buff stone, march up. And even at that point at rnd 3 when the buff stone unit is not even necessary to keep around and should be tossed away as a piece trade unit, they usually are the last ones standing. I agree that the meta doesn't try our more interesting options but I don't think the issue with trolls is that some players don't bring the stone in as early as it might be best. That's a skill issue and I think to claim that the skill distribution of troll players is meaningfully different from other factions would be a bit of a reach.
|
|
joedj
Junior Strategist
Posts: 513
|
Post by joedj on Nov 1, 2019 3:48:48 GMT
In MK1-2, layering TB buffs to make almost any TB model(s) a winner was a thing, but that is past. 'Tough' as a signature survivability trait of TBs is largely past, as several other factions accomplish it seemingly better (constructs, Steady, auto-healing, etc).
I'd like significantly more creative approachs to fixing TB's 'survive to retaliate' overarching design, as the above don't seem to be coming back. An example would be to give TB unit leaders (and CAs) greater base CMD stats, allowing 'safer' deployments and movement/positioning tactics. How many opposing players would really tilt over that? An anti-G-Wounds (solo) spell or aura, limit it to TB Warbeasts if you must (Runeshapers CA?) Increased Vengeance incidence on TB ranged specialists. A unit, other than KSB, with Self-Sac. I'm sure there are many other not-offensive-stat-buffing ways to improve TBs survive to retaliate tactics.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Nov 1, 2019 9:46:26 GMT
In MK1-2, layering TB buffs to make almost any TB model(s) a winner was a thing, but that is past. 'Tough' as a signature survivability trait of TBs is largely past, as several other factions accomplish it seemingly better (constructs, Steady, auto-healing, etc). I'd like significantly more creative approachs to fixing TB's 'survive to retaliate' overarching design, as the above don't seem to be coming back. An example would be to give TB unit leaders (and CAs) greater base CMD stats, allowing 'safer' deployments and movement/positioning tactics. How many opposing players would really tilt over that? An anti-G-Wounds (solo) spell or aura, limit it to TB Warbeasts if you must (Runeshapers CA?) Increased Vengeance incidence on TB ranged specialists. A unit, other than KSB, with Self-Sac. I'm sure there are many other not-offensive-stat-buffing ways to improve TBs survive to retaliate tactics. something I thought could be an interesting idea would be a model in the vein of Bone Shrines or Wracks, which would be both an arc node and grant Grievous immunity in a bubble. It's even more support bloat, but it's not like TB is swimming in arc nodes, and I think it would be thematically fitting. Really wished the archon would give anti-G, but that's clearly off the table.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin on Nov 1, 2019 10:08:31 GMT
Remember that Archon giving immunity to gw also works for Orboros and we wouldnt like it to be in Tharn xd Their op currently, we dont need them to be even more op xd What we need is rework of few warlocks. Grissel 1 and 2 and Jarl kinda dont have feats. Madrak3 kinda dont have ath Grim2 with current literation of KC is just a Mortality bot, and still have no idea how scary Garry can have witchmark and he does not. More playable locks - more possibilities even with no or slight changes to troops/beast.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Nov 1, 2019 18:06:58 GMT
The level of power creep CiD has been causing over the years really seems like pure cancer to me. Power creep can be a good thing, it can help drive the game forward and prevent meta stagnation, but the way it is now most factions seem to have one or two viable lists, and not even every faction has a competitive list, so they're just kind of left to dry until the next CiD comes around and the new ball busting toy comes out. I also wish PP would either pump every underpowered model the Firetruck up and create a format where everything is stupid strong (and as a result nobody's that strong, actually), or they dial everything back a bit. I mentioned it in another thread, I think, but if you shift the numbers across the board, you end up getting very similar results. the only thing that really matters is threat ranges - speed and reach. The CID process is interesting and on paper seems like a great idea. Unfortunately what we've discovered (perhaps unsurprisingly) is that those involved are often quite biased (usually players of the factions being tested) and as such view the models and changes being tested as being worse than they really are and try to push them to become better. The devs (through virtue of being human) are susceptible to that feedback and even if they originally think something is too good they're likely to shift their opinion simply by regular exposure to the idea of it and we get overtuned models. Also when looking at things in a bubble like CID we often don't see why things are actually too powerful. I think the biggest thing hurting troll players is the troll meta. They have so many interesting options but the lists usually boil down to buff stone, march up. And even at that point at rnd 3 when the buff stone unit is not even necessary to keep around and should be tossed away as a piece trade unit, they usually are the last ones standing. I agree that the meta doesn't try our more interesting options but I don't think the issue with trolls is that some players don't bring the stone in as early as it might be best. That's a skill issue and I think to claim that the skill distribution of troll players is meaningfully different from other factions would be a bit of a reach. True. I don't think that there are not extremely skilled troll players out there. It is more of the community being in a mind prison of sorts. Every list leverages around stone bearers even to the point when they are better used as disposable speed bumps. I think within that mind prison many troll players perform exceptionally. The meta definitely needs to take risks and grow. Cause looking at trolls and merc/minion options there is ALOT going on. There are many tools present.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Nov 1, 2019 18:09:42 GMT
In MK1-2, layering TB buffs to make almost any TB model(s) a winner was a thing, but that is past. 'Tough' as a signature survivability trait of TBs is largely past, as several other factions accomplish it seemingly better (constructs, Steady, auto-healing, etc). I'd like significantly more creative approachs to fixing TB's 'survive to retaliate' overarching design, as the above don't seem to be coming back. An example would be to give TB unit leaders (and CAs) greater base CMD stats, allowing 'safer' deployments and movement/positioning tactics. How many opposing players would really tilt over that? An anti-G-Wounds (solo) spell or aura, limit it to TB Warbeasts if you must (Runeshapers CA?) Increased Vengeance incidence on TB ranged specialists. A unit, other than KSB, with Self-Sac. I'm sure there are many other not-offensive-stat-buffing ways to improve TBs survive to retaliate tactics. Making high CMD stats the norm for Trolls could have a huge (and positive) impact on a mostly medium base+ army.
|
|
|
Post by allinontrolls on Nov 3, 2019 8:50:17 GMT
Troll Christmas ideas:
1. I would love that the free point options would be adjusted to all theme forces. 21 points of free options should not be possible. Perhaps just removing them and adding 10 points total would be an interesting option. Adding a second bonus to band of heroes would be nice too. 2. Our lights should be looked at. Some point adjustments or animi changes would be really helpful. For example an animus like the Dozer Animus would be nice for lights to buff single models. 3. Tough should be revaluated for trolls. Either a no gravious wounds stone bubble (maybe to strong) or just point adjustments for our models. 4. horgle1 should be reworked but perhaps a buff to lights would help to bring him back on the table + adding him to other theme forces.
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Nov 3, 2019 9:28:07 GMT
I keep thinking anti-GW would be OP with doomie3, but... one turn of glory that tharn get for free, hell, having a feat at all inside a small bubble is the furthest you could get from broken.
Anti-GW stone aura is a very interesting idea. Losing out on the STR buff means it's not a no-brainer either.
|
|