Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So this has been around
https://www.facebook.com/PartyFoulWMH/photos/a.266810533510943.1073741829.256740154517981/626673774191282/?type=3&theater

Now, IIRC back when MK3 was announced and everyone but MOW were nerfed to 5hp, I thought they said it was because they wanted MOW to stand out more. And they did, as the only 8hp medium based troops. But with Gators now, I think they've pretty much been dethroned again.

That's pretty sweet! It's the iconic unit of the faction, and no one took it in Mk3. I kind of wish they didn't need to use theme forces for this sort of thing, but then again it does keep Posse from outshining heavy infantry when taken as allies for other factions.

My Minions compatriots must be overjoyed right now wherever they all are! We were already thrilled with Mk3 in general, but having a good reason to run pure pigs and pure gators (and I'll likely do one list of each!) is quite cool

It's good.

It's nice that they are good in minions, but they don't become OP cheese in the other hordes factions like Skorne did in MKII.

To be faire the MOWs weren't the only 8HP infantry around (namely the CoC heavy infantry)
Nice boost though, I like the snacking on them too
(What I appreciate most is the non-mandatory clause on the remove from play , that allows Calaban's feat to still work )

Also Skinwalkers are 8 wounds still.

But yea, 8 wound, Snacking posse is really nice now. It is troubling that it is going to be in the theme list only, however. That either means they will be errata'd and the theme will change, or they will only be good in the theme. A third possibility is stipulating that they are 8 wounds and Snacking only with a Gatorman warlock, but I haven't seen any other units with those sorts of rules, so I think it is a really low probability.
Although, character beasts all have bonds and special rules with them, so maybe just adding a line to the card that says "Loyal [Blindwater Warlock]: if in an army led by a Blindwater Warlock, this unit has 8 wounds and Snacking." That might be a good thing for all merc and minion units and solos to have if they want to make them weaker out of faction.

Well, good. But they shouldn't have used a theme to do this.

Themes shouldn't be used as shoddy patchjobs to fix a problem, if you are doing that then the theme benefits should get changed to the standard rules. Posse and ALL heavy infantry should have 8 boxes standard like they used to. The fact that you need a theme to give them back their 8 boxes to fix them shows they shouldn't have lost them in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, good. But they shouldn't have used a theme to do this.

Themes shouldn't be used as shoddy patchjobs to fix a problem, if you are doing that then the theme benefits should get changed to the standard rules. Posse and ALL heavy infantry should have 8 boxes standard like they used to. The fact that you need a theme to give them back their 8 boxes to fix them shows they shouldn't have lost them in the first place.

My thoughts exactly.

MK3 themes are a different beast than MK2. They're really more built as sub-factions with the intention of making more models viable by making more models only powerful when included in their designated subfaction. This is certainly the most blatant example of that design, but for obvious reasons. It's not a patchjob; its deliberate, just like the general trend of overpriced solos that are free in theme.

Oh its a patchjob. Yes, its deliberate, and a horribly bad way to approach balance and design.

Everything should be viable outside of a theme on its own merits, as much as humanly possible. Then, themes give you additional bonuses for following restrictions.

So Haley2 should be able to take Eye of Truth with Satyxis Raiders and Hellmouths?

Games are always balanced with restrictions in mind. The idea of keeping everything viable is noble, but unrealistic when a game expands to the point where there are more options than places in a list. Similar to the issue with X-Wing where most ship expansion come with more pilot options than you can take in a list by itself. Something wins out and something gets left behind.

No faction "needs" gators to be viable except gators. Every faction has 2-3 sets of multi-wound infantry that actually do need to be viable because they can't be taken anywhere else.

MK3 Theme Forces are all about creating places for models to be viable after the game has expanded to the point where it doesn't really have room for more stuff. It's just really obvious in the case of gators.

 Red_Five wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, good. But they shouldn't have used a theme to do this.

Themes shouldn't be used as shoddy patchjobs to fix a problem, if you are doing that then the theme benefits should get changed to the standard rules. Posse and ALL heavy infantry should have 8 boxes standard like they used to. The fact that you need a theme to give them back their 8 boxes to fix them shows they shouldn't have lost them in the first place.

My thoughts exactly.

Except PP stated they wanted to reduce the amount of mercs and minions in the other factions. Mercnar and MiniSkorne for example. Back in mkII, unless you were running Fist of Halaak or something, the best heavy infantry in faction was gators. Cygnars best infantry was Boomhowler.

So I like how this theme increases Gators outside of the other factions, whilst preventing them from being abused by the main ones.

Well, the reason gators were so common was because most of those factions didn't have great in-faction choices. Not that gators were too good.

Welcome to the grand relativity of model balance.

Grey Templar still does have a point. Tharn men are not taken because they are bad compared to just about every other choice. The theme makes them pretty decent, but in a very specific list. That doesn't really help much, as they are still going to sit in the shelf (possibly the store's shelf) for most of their existence as a result.

It is one thing to say "Well, other faction's heavy infantry did its job well, but gatormen just did it better" and quite another to say "The in-faction heavy infantry wouldn't be taken, gatormen or not." Most heavy infantry falls into that latter category (as well as most Mk2 Cygnar infantry from what I gathered.)
I tried to get the Ravagers and Bloodpack to work (I own 2 units of each) but outside of the new theme they just don't get enough done. I don't own any gatormen, and never have, but those Tharn lads still sat on the shelf for... 4 years? Maybe 5, and largely uninterrupted unless I was playing eKrueger's old tier list. That's a big balance problem, and one that isn't really fixed with just a theme list.

So... there's a list Tharn work in now? That's more lists than they ever have, no? For that matter, theme lists really aren't as "one list" as they were in MK2. The freedom to pick your caster and the variety of builds available is significantly higher, so while something only works "in theme" its not as restrictive as that sounds.

The new style theme lists seem very powerful and I think before long they'll be the de facto way to play. That... kinda sucks right now when factions have a lot of model types that don't fit in a theme, but once we get a couple more so each faction has 5-6 options, I think a lot of MK3 will make sense. It's a lot easier to balance these subfactions than it is to try to manage every crossover benefit, and PP seems to be working on the idea that those out of theme synergies are going to come at a pretty hefty tax.

Sining wrote:
So this has been around
https://www.facebook.com/PartyFoulWMH/photos/a.266810533510943.1073741829.256740154517981/626673774191282/?type=3&theater

Now, IIRC back when MK3 was announced and everyone but MOW were nerfed to 5hp, I thought they said it was because they wanted MOW to stand out more. And they did, as the only 8hp medium based troops. But with Gators now, I think they've pretty much been dethroned again.

Skinwalkers have 8w aswell, with Regen.

 LunarSol wrote:
So... there's a list Tharn work in now? That's more lists than they ever have, no? For that matter, theme lists really aren't as "one list" as they were in MK2. The freedom to pick your caster and the variety of builds available is significantly higher, so while something only works "in theme" its not as restrictive as that sounds.

The new style theme lists seem very powerful and I think before long they'll be the de facto way to play. That... kinda sucks right now when factions have a lot of model types that don't fit in a theme, but once we get a couple more so each faction has 5-6 options, I think a lot of MK3 will make sense. It's a lot easier to balance these subfactions than it is to try to manage every crossover benefit, and PP seems to be working on the idea that those out of theme synergies are going to come at a pretty hefty tax.

There's a list Tharn Ravagers sort of work in, now. Thus far it has seen some tournament success, but limited. Mostly limited to one guy, Bobliness on the old PP forums, who decided he just wanted to use it, come what may. Bloodpack are still poo so far as I have ever seen. The casters the Ravagers work with in the theme are pretty limited too, but then I don't have a lot of experience with it.
So there are 2 or 3 lists that Ravagers work alright in, all of which are in one fairly restrictive theme, a theme you need to really load up on Tharn infantry to get the full value out of.

You are seeing it as very glass half full, and I get that. It isn't as terrible as it was. On the other hand, after an edition change, as well as a re-balance errata and other minor tweaks, I still feel like I could sell half my Circle models and not affect any lists that actually work. Our heavy infantry options are just not appealing; although Skinwalkers can be fun they need a few particular casters, and Tharn males need a theme list to make them pretty decent. That's not good design.

Also, on your point about sub-factions: the big problem with Minions and to a lesser extent Mercs in Mk2 was that half their models couldn't work with the other half. Extending that to the rest of the factions by way of restrictive theme lists that are needed to make a big chunk of the model stable worth taking is really bad design. Going from 12 or so factions to something like 24-48 mini-factions with 4-5 models in each is a really heavy price to pay for easing the balance issues. Particularly when those sub-faction's rules and even model content can change at the drop of a hat.
I get that PP wants to release new models and new rules on a fairly regular basis, and the fact is that the design space is getting pretty choked. It would seem, however, that the better path would be to encourage players to either buy different units to use in strange new ways (like the old tiers) or to add additional factions to their stables, not make all currently played factions into 2-5 sub-factions that don't really overlap or one big faction that only uses 25% of the models.

What are the casters they work well? I got a whole unit of Ravagers+UA+Solo+Bloodpack+Nuala?
I found it is frustering with boldur and solid ground, people seem to not like that when I make tough rolls even after I made thme

 Wehrkind wrote:

You are seeing it as very glass half full, and I get that. It isn't as terrible as it was. On the other hand, after an edition change, as well as a re-balance errata and other minor tweaks, I still feel like I could sell half my Circle models and not affect any lists that actually work. Our heavy infantry options are just not appealing; although Skinwalkers can be fun they need a few particular casters, and Tharn males need a theme list to make them pretty decent. That's not good design.

Part of it is a half full perspective but also a realistic one. Tharn are never going to be generally useful in every list or if they are, something else won't be. The larger the option set, the more stuff falls into disuse simply because new things have to replace something. Making things work in smaller restriction sets gives players more to work with. A caster or unit might only work in theme but if 5-6 themes each have 3-4 best casters that are different sets of best casters, you're working with more than when you continue to throw more in the general pool and try to keep anything from rising to the top while not creating external balance problems.

If you want to play Tharn, play the Tharn theme. That's exactly what its there for. They may only work for a couple of casters in a few different configurations in the theme, but that's kind of the point. They can be good in a limited capacity that doesn't interfere with something else being good in its niche configuration. It's a bit of optimism, but also a bit of practicality. I've never seen a game increase variety by simply adding stuff once its reached any sort of maturity. There's always the dream of hard choices, but realistically once those choices are made I rarely see players go back and remake them. Rather, in every system I've played, its the restrictions that put the widest range of options in play.

Yeah, the game is simply too big to allow for all units to be competitive. There's too much overlap. Even a game as rigorously playtested as M:tG has a palpable power curve.

The reality is that when factions have dozens of casters, jacks, and units, they're going to keep going back to the same handful every time.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Wehrkind wrote:

You are seeing it as very glass half full, and I get that. It isn't as terrible as it was. On the other hand, after an edition change, as well as a re-balance errata and other minor tweaks, I still feel like I could sell half my Circle models and not affect any lists that actually work. Our heavy infantry options are just not appealing; although Skinwalkers can be fun they need a few particular casters, and Tharn males need a theme list to make them pretty decent. That's not good design.

Part of it is a half full perspective but also a realistic one. Tharn are never going to be generally useful in every list or if they are, something else won't be. The larger the option set, the more stuff falls into disuse simply because new things have to replace something. Making things work in smaller restriction sets gives players more to work with. A caster or unit might only work in theme but if 5-6 themes each have 3-4 best casters that are different sets of best casters, you're working with more than when you continue to throw more in the general pool and try to keep anything from rising to the top while not creating external balance problems.

If you want to play Tharn, play the Tharn theme. That's exactly what its there for. They may only work for a couple of casters in a few different configurations in the theme, but that's kind of the point. They can be good in a limited capacity that doesn't interfere with something else being good in its niche configuration. It's a bit of optimism, but also a bit of practicality. I've never seen a game increase variety by simply adding stuff once its reached any sort of maturity. There's always the dream of hard choices, but realistically once those choices are made I rarely see players go back and remake them. Rather, in every system I've played, its the restrictions that put the widest range of options in play.

Ah, I see where we are talking past each other. I am not saying they need to be generally useful in every list, but rather that they should be useful in something other than their specific theme. Recall that we were talking about Posse and how they were used so much in Mk2 because most heavy infantry options were bad, so bad that they were almost never a good choice. Now Mk3 comes, and Ravagers are again about the worst option for what they do (cleave through infantry and slightly ding up heavies and lights). In fact there is exactly one list type (theme) that they are useful in, and even then not great.

You are right that it is partially a problem of "Too much stuff". Especially with Ravagers whose main role is to clear infantry, something that just about everything in Circle does practically as a side effect. The question then is "Why do they keep releasing models that do the same few things?" I don't really have an answer for that other than "Bad design." It isn't as though Ravagers are new; they have been around for a loooooong time, and got two attachments added in Mk2.

Now, I am optimistic that the new CID system will help fix stuff like that, and maybe the new themes are part of that, sort of a test bed for giving the Ravagers (and Death Wolves) some extra tricks to see how they work. That would be a good idea, although I don't like the churn it is likely to produce. I really don't like the fact that instead of being a slightly inferior option, things like Ravagers are only good in a limited list, such that if I want to try a unit of Druids with them I have to use the very inferior version. I am all for restricted lists that really make them shine, but restricted lists that only make them less bad seems like a poor decision. Just make them less bad across the board.

As a side note, it seems to me that releasing models constantly when you have dead weight in already existing models that people don't buy is a really bad move. Just from a supply chain and inventory perspective, you are sitting on inventory of goods already designed and produced and costing you money every day, all while designing and producing new things that may or may not sit. Spending a year or two releasing new rules for existing models that don't get purchased would seem to be a really good way to use one's time, all while expanding the effective range of models on offer to customers. PP currently has a pretty large range, but effectively each faction has a small number of models that people actually want.

I'm just happy gators are good in something but yeah, more permanent fixes for lackluster units would probably be better.

Still, I'm not complaining as they really were shelf beasts up until this, so it's a great improvement!

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, the game is simply too big to allow for all units to be competitive. There's too much overlap. Even a game as rigorously playtested as M:tG has a palpable power curve.

The reality is that when factions have dozens of casters, jacks, and units, they're going to keep going back to the same handful every time.

Its going to be impossible to have perfect balance, but it is absolutely possible for every single unit to be competitive in at least a few lists. And without shoddy patchjobs that these new themes are providing.

I suppose the difference in my point of view is that I don't really see these things as mistakes. I see them as very much intentional decisions to push the game towards more contained list options.

Tharn are actually a good example of this. In MK2 a common suggestion was to have them start with Heart tokens, which we got a little test in the Death Wolves, who then lost this ability and almost immediately got it back in the theme. Now, I'm also of the opinion that that theme should probably be a bit more aggressive on handing out tokens than it is (per 5 points or maybe just 1 heart per model would be better than the current stingy bonus) but I think there's a lot of things that lost some things in order to make room for bonuses for running them in themes.

Intentional Decisions can still be massive mistakes. "More contained list options" to me just means uninspired and unimaginative. Or just "we aren't willing to admit we messed up X in the first place, so we're going to give them a theme and say we only mean them to be used in that theme just to cover our failure"


Everything should be viable in some fashion.

Themes should be used as additional bonuses you gain for following a heavily restricted army structure. Themes should reward you for restricting yourself. Not bring something thats crap up to barely playable in exchange for restricting yourself to playing said crap. Thats just going to result in those crap units, and their themes, still not being used.

A lot of that is perspective. Should themes reward you for restricting yourself or should playing out of theme punish you for the ability to potentially leverage a broader array of potential synergies? The answer is irrelevant, because there's not actually a difference; just a choice in how you choose to perceive the result. (see WoW's "rested" bonus vs the original "tired" penalty)

I expect MK3 to be a world where playing out of theme is a significant penalty. Most factions only have a couple themes currently and that already seems to be the case. That's essentially the perspective I argue from. Things are likely only as good or bad and in need of buffs and nerfs as they are in the themes available to them.

Which is a totally moronic way to design the game. Especially when themes are still all over the board in terms of power. Protectorate themes are really men and overly restrictive. Other themes were outright op.

It's really not any dumber than factions. Most themes probably have more options than the factions did in the beginning after all. It's just an additional layer.

Most of the themes so far are pretty playable. Menoth's jack list with a free book is not to be discounted, particularly with the likes of Dhurst or Amon. There's definitely some that seem a little underwhelming, but they're a small enough minority I can see them seeing play with some new models or an errata (Tharn needed more Hearts is high on my list). Of them the only one that feels completely bad is Sons of the Tempest but that may simply be a meta issue. It certainly has uses wrecking the day of the Revenant list.

The Protectorate Jack theme is functional, but its honestly most of the time worse than running out of theme.

Amon is best when he has a screening unit or a couple Monks. Some free support solos isn't quite worth giving those up. I think the only caster who can really benefit a ton from that theme is Tristan. And its still not a very competitive choice.

The Flameguard theme will be better if and when PP makes infantry cheaper. But its current state is underwhelming outside of a Thyra list, which is still questionable if its better than running out of theme with some other choices.

If something is awful, it should just get fixed. Instead of saying "we'll patch it in a theme!". Thats just lazy.

I don't really disagree, I just think the definition of awful is going to be "awful in theme" and we'll see things adjusted based on that metric instead of anything involving its out of theme performance.