|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 7, 2018 0:54:12 GMT
Windstorm is good against cygnar. Period. Having a speed 7 heavy (not a gargantuan, only its gun is gargantuan-class) with windstorm and a half is amazing against cygnar, and that's even if you never get to do the hilarious guardian beast disruption trick. Also, are you seriously suggesting that the cygnar player plays Storm Division or a colossal into Krueger2? That seems like an incredibly bad plan. Playing Storm Division into Krueger 2 when it isn't Bones isn't a bad plan at all, tbh (and isn't terrible even if it is Bones, imo). I think Stryker 2 has a good game there. Colossal is a bad plan, but that's because Cygnar's colossals are pretty bad period. Cygnar's natural gun ranges are long enough that the -3 from the Bird isn't too harmful because you can often stay out of Wind Storm and still shoot, Sloan is the obvious candidate here who doesn't mind Range 13 Hunters and, tbh, doesn't mind range 8" hunters either since thats still 14" of threat against the Bird and it will go down quickly to her. Its the Electrical immunity that hurts a lot of Cygnar lists because of their reliance on Striders, but I'm seeing the Gravediggers + Striders list pairing being bullied out of the meta and someone like Kara might be right there to pick up the slack. But we are getting stuck in the weeds because you didn't answer my question, what matchups is this list looking to play into? Stryker2 is really, really bad into Krueger. He has no tools to mitigate TK. He (typically) has no outs for rebuke (the merc slot is nearly always piper). Decel is...not enough to keep storm lances alive to Bones shooting. And his personal output is neutered by krueger2's assassination threat. I've played this matchup, and it's not good. God help the stryker player if the take any lightning based synergy pieces into Krueger2, also, because those points are almost completely wasted. Storm Strider's aren't exactly made for stomping. -3 range makes you more likely to have to come into windstorm to shoot the storm raptor. Krueger2's not scared of range 14 or less guns, and guess what? -3 range on range 16 guns makes them less than range 14. The bird just has to not play too far forward, and boom - if you want to shoot it, you're at -8 range. And that's without getting into the fact that trying to skirt windstorm with a gunline is typically a recipe for losing on scenario, as krueger proceeds to move up, feat on most of your army, then score unconstested for 3 straight turns.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 5, 2018 9:08:47 GMT
Recursion is not guaranteed (though the outs to it are overstated, given how broad most recursion is. I don't care if you brought RFP, unless it's a theme benefit you're not RFPing everything you kill, and if you're opponent brings recursion and then lets you wipe out units, they are playing like a potato). It also has a much higher top end.
A supreme guardian recurs 3 immortals for 3 turns (not at all uncommon). Even after the points drop on immortals, that's ~12 points of recurred models. And at the end of the day, you've still got a supreme guardian, a model which is capable of wrecking...well, everything.
A blockhouse recurs 2 trenchers a turn for 4 turns. Assuming the blockhouse recurs regular trenchers, we're looking at 12.8 points of models.
Skarre3 recurs ~2 blighted trollkin over 5 turns. That's 15 points of models.
None of these are uncommon scenarios. And yet you don't see people claiming that the blockhouse is 'negative points' or that Skarre3 is 'really a 40+ WJP caster'.
Whether you call it 'adding' models to play or 'returning models' to play, the end result is the same in the vast majority of games. There are advantages to what the well does (fixed value every game, which can't be easily denied). There are advantages to what recursion does (higher top end, greater scenario presence over the course of the game). However, it's asinine to claim that you can't make a comparison between the two.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 1, 2018 20:19:50 GMT
As long as we've got P+S 20 Warmongers, Double HoF-Judicators with the ranged presence to wipe heavies off the board in an activation, and a supreme guardian that kills virtually anything it gets in melee with, I do not even slightly buy that divine inspiration on beast (in a single theme. on a single attachment. at the cost of RFPing a warrior model) was even close to being a problem. I gotta say, for all the hype around judi, Ive yet to shoot down a heavy in one go. The rockets are too unreliable. But I HAVE gunned down heavies with the revelator. Speaking from personal experience, I have had heavies shot off the table by the judicator. Woldwardens, Warpwolves, Woldwatchers (not heavies, but comparably durable), even Wold Guardians. If a Judicator gets to unload all of it's guns on a heavy, and that heavy is not in cover...very little survives. Oddsmachine gives about a 45% chance of one-rounding a Khador Heavy, for instance. (with Sev0, Battle, and HoF).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 1, 2018 4:18:01 GMT
Hopefully this interaction gets removed for things like the Judicator. If it is too powerful on a warpwolf, it should be too powerful on any beast / jack. Hey, let's ask Pagani why it's okay in other factions. I don't buy that warpwolves are too strong arguement As long as we've got P+S 20 Warmongers, Double HoF-Judicators with the ranged presence to wipe heavies off the board in an activation, and a supreme guardian that kills virtually anything it gets in melee with, I do not even slightly buy that divine inspiration on beast (in a single theme. on a single attachment. at the cost of RFPing a warrior model) was even close to being a problem.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 31, 2018 3:28:09 GMT
Here is a statement by Pagani in my gaming groups FB page about the restriction of divine inspiration from model to warrior model. "One of the reasons I fought for cutting it was because of how much better all the beasts got. Substantial point drops with stat bumps means it was over the top in my eyes." Take from that what you will. For me I really wish we had a chance to test the model both ways during CID.I am also bummed our faction loses out on a potentially faction defining ability which would allow us to remove some of our reliance on primal. Outside of that one complaint, everything else is basically perfect in my eyes. So overall I have a very positive outlook on this CID. But there are living beasts that didn't receive substantial updates (the pureblood and feral did not see any stat increases, and the shadowhorn hardly changed). The only beasts that got dramatically better were the Riphorn and the Stalker. Moreover, the new living beasts and the CID Blood Priestess were tested in the same CID cycle. I saw precisely one person take any kind of real issue with the ability (and that was only in terms of stacking it with HoF, which could be solved by keywording it if it was in fact a problem). It was the same all through CID, if problems were going to emerge, they would have been flagged in CID. I mean, seriously...I'd take less issue with this if we weren't also seeing crap like the SG/Derp Turtle/Judicator-with-double-HoF in other factions, but labelling something 'too strong' on the back of internal testing alone feels like a kneejerk. Virtually everything else about the update is fine, but that changes leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's a big enough change to that model's core function that the blood priestess might as well not have had a CID at all, because no one was using that ability on warrior models (consistently) in CID.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 30, 2018 16:28:11 GMT
I'm 99% certain the Blood Shaman wasn't busted. Guessing it was a safety issue. I'd rather have a weaker universal buff. She's still great and, IMO, a staple with Tharn. Parry they clearly thought so... Yup, it's a pity there wasn't a week to test but it's really hard to test the absence of something. Wasn't surprised about the removal of Repo 3 on the bloodpack. But they had too much going on... The hunter move was unexpected. If the catalyst for it was Treewalker not ignoring concealment and it being odd... then I can't figure them out. Considering that Menoth have access to double HoF + Eye of Menoth on a Colossal, and this made it through CID...it was definitely not a power issue. Especially at the cost of RFP-ing an infantry model a turn for access. Add in the Firetrucking bonkers Supreme Guardian, and...yeah. Not super thrilled with this. Not terribly bothered by most of the internal testing changes (parry needed to go, dodge had oppression potential, Blood Pack had too many rules on their card), but the blood shaman nerf feels reactive, and makes me think that a certain dev got got by it in internal testing. That, or the recent performance of the judicator has hard-noped double HoF effects on beasts for the foreseeable future (though, in the way of these things, the main offender will likely remain un-nerfed for the foreseeable future as well.) I guess we're not supposed to ever be able to stop relying on primal.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 29, 2018 3:44:24 GMT
What does gained beyond mortality mean? You can trigger feat with ranged Morvtality: Return of the SprayOE. Did not think that was ever coming back...
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 26, 2018 21:42:19 GMT
0 interest in playing wolf riders at Mat 6 Def 14. just...no interest whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 15, 2018 5:26:52 GMT
Good answers thank you! They makes sense. Never thought of dropping a unit of sentry stones. It appeals to me! do you miss the second unit? Ehhh. Sentry Stones are amazing, so it's hard to say that I don't miss it, but I think it's fair to say that I've yet to have a game where I was unhappy with the tradeoffs I've made in the list. I find that Sentry Stones tend to be very binary pieces - some opponents have the tools to remove them easily, and in those cases two aren't really much better than one. By contrast, when sentry stones can't be dealt with, two are often 'win more' rather than strictly necessary. That's not the case in some lists (in Bradigus, for instance, I need two for matchups where I'd otherwise lose Brad to a competent ranged assassination), but for Krueger2 or Baldur2, where I'm just counting on the stone to go off and stall a flank as long as possible? It's less of an issue. I will say that in the games I've played with musza 's ' list (our local WTC players wanted to play against it for practice), I felt very constrained by the lack of an arc node (Rebuke becomes a very risky spell to put out, for instance, and Krueger tends to be more limited to defensive TKs) and particularly by the loss of the second set of shifting stones (I tend to dedicate one set to babysitting the fulcrum, so the second set is needed for lightning beacons/threatening megalith ports, and blocking charge lanes). The list feels overall much less dynamic when you lose those two options. I also think you lose play into some key matchups (Anamag, for instance, and Harbinger). Mr. Fishstick, though...I find that he's a flag sitter in 80% of games, an 'ignore concealment' bot in 15% of games, and completely critical to the outcome of the match in 5% of games.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 15, 2018 3:26:45 GMT
Thanks for the write ups! Round 1: Thats the woldwyrd dream come true. Questions though: How do you think you would have played the game if you didn't win the dice roll? How would the k2 vs H3 gravedigger game actually go? Round 2: You mention the starting dice roll was again key here, why? The speed of the list? What would you have done if you didn't win it Round 3: I am also interested on how attrition would go Cryx always worries me Round 4: After just starting with a fulcrum, the fire immunity only clicked with your summary so that excites me. In general though, after feat turn, how deadly are the judicators with their sprays? The AOEs seem to not be a huge threat, but the sprays still are yes? I'm going to take a stab at this, as I've been playing Krueger2 for over a year now, to good success. 1. Krueger wants to go first for a couple reasons. Going first lets you deploy the battle engine aggressively, and to start the engagement with Fury on it, rather than having to make tough choices if you want to shoot turn 1. Going first also lets you get Krueger2 super far up the board to project windstorm - a common opener for me is TK Krueger, Windstorm, charge right up to the LOS-blocking terrain in the center of the table. In most scenarios, it limits the opponent's ability to effectively shoot your stuff turn 1, and lets you project a lot of feat threat turn 2 (though you really don't want to feat turn 2). It also lets you project a lot of assassination threat, as Krueger can personally threaten 20" with his gun, or 18" with TKs. Basically, Krueger really benefits if you can make your opponent hesitate about how far they want to come forward turn 1, and if they stay back too far, you can just get handed some games with feat/TK letting you score up hard on turn 2/3. 2. Speaking from experience, the Skarre1 matchup is a PAIN on attrition, but the Bane Riders variant is probably easier to handle. Rebuke a unit of Riders, collapse the other flank, and try to deny alpha as hard as possible. It's much worse if you go second, but Sentry Stones can quite effectively hold down a flank (either the Stalkers stay out of threat, which is a tempo win, or they come into threat and get charged by Mannikins, which (at Mat 5, P+S 11) can really mess them up). You do basically have to play the 'don't touch me' game for a good couple turns, though, as well as know how to use shifting stones to deny Wraith Engine landing spots. 3. I currently run a mist speaker in my variant of the list, but I have been flip flopping on the possibility of dropping it for a Stone Missile and a second Gallows Grove (I run 1 sentry stone instead of two, but I get a second unit of stones and a gallows grove out of the deal). Probably something I'll play around with, though I think there are some matchups (like the Skarre1 matchup!) where the ability to get eyeless sight is absolutely crucial, which...makes be uncertain about dropping the mist speaker.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 13, 2018 7:26:24 GMT
Surely people can't get upset about making a change that most agree is for the better... and hold it against them. I like the idea of some sort of rule to allow models to take others out of theme. Agree Constance and Precursors is a good one. Struggling to think of any others where a companion model is so tied to the core of the caster and not just a nice to have. The threshold needs to be more than naming another model on the card (eg the Sorscha flank comment), it needs to be core. However, it would be interesting to see it used for 'fluff' reasons too - eg letting Shae take Hawk in any list (bad example since I think there's no list they can't be taken together). Totally can. Largely because the way they handle communications (particularly Soles) is to be very dismissive about concerns or ideas that don't fit into their general plan for the game, then (eventually) turn around and present it as their own idea, or (alternatively) like it was 'the plan' all along. It's insulting to the playerbase, and frankly, it makes me respect them less each time they do it. Same goes for the way that they like to insist that 'X list is not a problem/not being considered for nerfs' then turn around and nerf the offending list a few months later...as anyone with a brain should have realized that they would.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 10, 2018 1:09:39 GMT
You've got to be DAMN careful with listening to hearsay like that, though. I know for a fact that there have been several 'reputable rumors' that the Circle community was engaged in a backdoor attempt to skew our CID. I've been accused of collaborating 'behind the scenes' with a couple of the other Circle posters on these boards...who I have literally never spoken to outside of said boards, and who (with a few exceptions) I don't even know the IRL identities of. Everyone wants there to be a grand conspiracy against their faction. It's not likely to be the case. It is way, way more likely that individual posters are affected by bias (and yes, I include myself in that, obviously), and/or that said players are simply not very good at the game. I have also been accused of being part of the grand circle conspiracy, which is on the face of it preposterous. I've also been accused of being in a conspiracy to make Skorne bad in their CID (which all of my posts about how their theme benefit is boring should attest to being 100% true) and also that I make up battle reports (which is hilarious as I often have my opponents reply in my battle reports about their thoughts). I have no idea where all this Wardolly Conspiracy has come from or why people would apparently spend their time and effort tanking a CID for a wargame of all things. 'grand Circle conspiracy?' If anything, I'd have pegged you for Cygnar bias... But seriously, bias is one thing. I've got my share of that. People who post battle reports against themselves, or draw bad conclusions from battle reports are another. But some kind of...grand conspiracy of players trying to unfairly promote their faction? That'd require waaaay more organization than I've ever seen in this game's community. And hell, hardly anyone (at least, hardly anyone with any degree of serious experience) plays just one faction. Promoting one faction is really just shooting yourself in the foot (plus, doing so is just going get you a dynamic update in a year or so when the imbalance becomes clear). gobber - every 'rally the troops' post I've seen in the groups I'm in has been more along the lines of 'I don't think this is good, and it's not being tested, can we get more reports?' than 'lets flood the CID forum with bad data.'
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 10, 2018 0:09:50 GMT
Do you have any evidence of this or is it baseless speculation? I have seen a lot of battle reports by mediocre players who make atrocious mistakes being used to justify buffs or nerfs when in reality the game was far more influenced by their mistakes and unwillingness to correct those mistakes during the game like you are supposed to during playtesting. I see no reason to exclude these players from the process of CID, but I do think that when people make play mistakes in battle reports that they are called out. We are not all Star Children who cannot make mistakes and balance should not be based upon mediocre play. Actually, if you really want to break it down that way, it's hearsay passed on from those who did see the private Facebook groups that did this. In retrospect, I can see how what I wrote did not make that sufficiently clear and how I should be more careful about repeating something like that. Obviously, I've become very cynical about the process and that makes it easy to believe the worst, but I did have it on good authority at the time and it explained a lot. Even though it does still sound pretty unbelievable, so does much of what I've seen in the CID forums and process. As for mistakes in playtest games, you are of course completely correct. I've done that myself and sometimes even said that I felt a game that I had played was worthless as a report when I'd botched it especially badly, or because the matchup was just so bad that it didn't tell us anything more novel than "Don't drop a list without so much as one shield guard into a full gun line." Like I said, we can't turn the game into something that only the top players can play. Sometimes I think it's too close to that already. We do need to hear from players of different skill levels but we need to weigh that feedback thoughtfully. A good example is when I badly underestimated the Battle Bears because I insisted on always ambushing with them (turns out that it's often better to AD them instead) and I didn't apply all of the synergies that I could. Balance should not be based on mediocre play but game design does need to account for varying levels of skill. So players of different skill levels do need to be included. I had thought that I'd said as much, but maybe that wasn't very clear either. You've got to be DAMN careful with listening to hearsay like that, though. I know for a fact that there have been several 'reputable rumors' that the Circle community was engaged in a backdoor attempt to skew our CID. I've been accused of collaborating 'behind the scenes' with a couple of the other Circle posters on these boards...who I have literally never spoken to outside of said boards, and who (with a few exceptions) I don't even know the IRL identities of. Everyone wants there to be a grand conspiracy against their faction. It's not likely to be the case. It is way, way more likely that individual posters are affected by bias (and yes, I include myself in that, obviously), and/or that said players are simply not very good at the game.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 9, 2018 21:27:18 GMT
What about Kromac1 in Wild Hunt? You get a mixed BG which he likes. Access to ambushing units for control and contesting. Skinwalkers as a “durable” contesting unit with IR. I tried it pre CiD with muxed success. But with everything having PF now, and beasts being cheaper I might take it for a spin. I'd tend much more towards Kromac1 in CoTW (with or without the Storm Raptor) or in Devourer's Host (for actually good infantry + access to the Blood Priestess). He doesn't really do much for Wolds, especially now that Wolves hit reasonably hard for their points again.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 9, 2018 2:43:55 GMT
I roll too many double 1s on my Ravagers...Hopefully triple 1s will be a rarer occurrence!
I like the idea of 6 Scarsfells for cracking all of the armor, then having a bunch of Tharn to clean up infantry. My issue with her CoTW builds is that so many things eat Defense skews these days (and I hate lists that rely on my opponent rolling average - see also, why I play Krueger2)
I CAN see maybe running a bunch of Griffons and the Storm Raptor with her...but then I also like the idea of the Raptor on Una2...and we have no real clue how the Storm Raptor is going to look after internal testing...
Damnit, why can't the update drop already!
|
|