uvenlord wrote:
Well I try to consider your proposals but you do sound like the "old AC that will never be happy" some of the times.
So, should I be dismissed out of hand? There's a reason I sound unhappy way btw - I'm very passionate about the list. I put in a lot of work and effort getting it to where it was. You've acknowledged the work I did but now you want to erase it. I do want to try some of your proposals as I mentioned and I'm not totally against all your changes, just the Great Company and list structure change.
Would you rather see? Passionate involvement or non-involvement?
uvenlord wrote:
The main difference between us is that I like Codex and you do not. Most of the issues you have put forward so far has been that the list is moving towards gray codex and you feel that that is a bad thing and I do not.
This isn't quite true. I don't dislike Codex, it's just that the SW list isn't supposed to mirror it in the way you're proposing.
uvenlord wrote:
Also you have said several times that you will quit this development process, you left the SP AC post without a word more then a year ago. You also said that you have not played epic in a year or so... That's part of the reasons I have chosen to change things against your liking.
Yes, apologies for my health problems but am I not allowed to come back and get involved? Does a year out mean I have no say?
uvenlord wrote:
Basically I think this will make people take one less Great Co then they do now and open up those points for something else. Is that so bad?
Well as I said, and if you want to see it from a fluff perspective, the most numerous troop type are the Grey Hunters. Other pack types should take a back seat not be given free reign.
uvenlord wrote:
What upgrades do you take and for what reason?
I take all of them in different set ups. I use Long Fangs for supplying firepower in FF assault positions and laying BMs to prep for assaults. I use Blood Claws and Grey Hunters to beef up an assault pack. Grey Hunters supply the FF/CC and BC supply the extra man power for unit numbers and CC.
uvenlord wrote:
Also why should they have mixed formations? They have to my knowledge not been able to have it in 40k...
After the most important reasons of theme and character, it encompasses the abstraction for Epic.
The addition of the other unit types to the GH in the GC is meant to represent how a Great Company develops and be the core of the army all built into one formation. The Hunting packs are there to be side line formations and not be the focus.
uvenlord wrote:
Se reasons above. I find it hard to believe that people will be spamming Wolf Guards and Long Fangs because of this. Both are expensive units. (And the Long fangs get a nerf in the same update)
I'm not just talking about these two unit types. Do people leave out Terminators in a Codex list? My point is that good unit types will almost always be taken. The most important aspect of this is the fluff reason I mentioned earlier. about the most numerous troop type.
uvenlord wrote:
You are not obliged to take tacticals in the codex list. Different stuff do different things, what are better then the Great Company?
And IMHO that is a problem with the list but I'm not going to start that discussion here.
uvenlord wrote:
If the Great Company is useless, like you seems to think,
Let me stop you right there from putting words in my mouth. That isn't what I said. I put "better" in the sentence for a reason - every army has "better unit types" that get picked over the others. I did not say Great Company is useless - they're quite the opposite. The mainstay of the list.
uvenlord wrote:
who would want to play with this list if it forces them to take at least two bad units for almost 1/5 of the points.
Ask all the players who have played the list so far over the years? You don't have to take the expensive upgraded formation of the Great Company.
uvenlord wrote:
Dobbsy wrote:
Great Company + Grey Hunters 350
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Long Fangs 300
Blood Claws 225
Blood Claws 225
Fenrisian Wolves 150
<snip>
Do you think it is too good or just an example of a Codex mirror build? I do not understand?
No no, I just used it as a simple example of what lists might look like under this change. More of any other troop type than Grey Hunters - for various reasons of power or cost.
uvenlord wrote:
The thunderhawk was changed before approvement.
True but it's an adjustment I would not have made because of the increase of CC factor for the infantry in the list. That said, it's one I'm keen to use to see how it functions in the building of a list - but in this discussion I'm talking about how it adds to the increase in power you're proposing with these changes.
uvenlord wrote:
Like before, please show a build that is OP or even better make some reports.
I can throw any build up and you won't say it's OP. The point is that removing the restraint of the structure and allowing more of the Hunting pack types to be taken means the restrictions in place to keep the list from becoming OTT will empower the list and push it towards that. Adding to this the inclusion of Warhounds (also a change I'm keen to see how it works) increases the list balance and strength quite a lot when taken as a whole.
uvenlord wrote:
This is to me the old grumpy AC that will never be satisfied, sorry.
And that's disappointing from a development point of view. Discount anyone who disagrees with you? I did ask if I should bother and explained my hesitancy.
uvenlord wrote:
Thanks for the input
Just before I say any anything else, please remember that the playtest version is just a bunch of proposed changes. Nothing is set in stone. I like to have a discussion about them and will change according to what you guys think.
Of course. You asked for feedback about the changes and I presented my concerns and tried to explain my thinking.
uvenlord wrote:
So right now I have two votes on "no change whatsoever" that thinks all my suggestions are bad.
That's where you're wrong.