Maybe too good?

[DemonCalibre]

Before I get into this, I want to make sure everyone gets where I am coming from. First I have played Circle since 6 months before Unleashed, I had a period was I was disenchanted with them, and displeased(post evo, pre meta era), but I have been back in black(get it), for since the field test, so I am not gunning to knock down Circle models because of faction Bias.

Through my testing so far, reading of the forums, and discussion with my peers, have hit upon two things that I think might be to good. I am not speaking massively overpowered winning every game good. I am talking better enough then every choice, that it really stops being a choice.

First is The Gorax, cheap enough that every list can include him, boasting the Highest possible fury stat for a light, formidable hand to hand capability(for a light), and Primal. Circle's weakness is hitting power, Things like Khadoran jacks give us headaches that other factions sometimes don't fully understand. Primal is the cure all, couple that with a beast that in it's own right is very respectable, and the dirt cheap price tag. The question is why not take him? Why isn't he the first choice for your Light every time? Powerful(and needed) Tech, Solid package for fighting, and High Fury that he by himself can keep your Warlock trucking for a few turns, in the end game.

The Second are Ravagers. In my opinion this is less obvious then the Gorax. Ravagers with the UA are another cure all for our hitting problems. They hit as hard as Storm Blades, Thresh Infantry like Doom Reavers(living that is) without the hiccup of bulldozing their own guys, and by Circle Standards(which aren't the best), Tough. Now admittedly they have very little direct competition(Wolves of Orboros, and Blood Weavers not really doing the same job) for their slot, and are expensive(which warrants them being good), but they do everything, and more particularly they hit hard, which again as a faction theme is something we don't do well. So Why shouldn't I take them every game, Yeah they are expensive but they provide me something I absolutely need(particularly in the era where multiwound infantry is so good), and can do the job of Wolves of Orboros, and Blood weavers.

So are these models on the stage of becoming our new autoincludes? I am pretty sure that the Gorax is going to be(which will further marginalize construct Heavies), and I am pretty sure that Ravagers will be similar to MK1 Iron Fangs. You won't take them every game, but you could have and most likely would have been better for it. Another thing I want to point out, I am talking in broad strokes, I am sure we all can cook up examples and specific situations that downplay the power of these models, but lets be honest in a take all comers tournement list, what are you going to bring?

[LEJKaya]

I haven't gotten around to Ravagers.

I'm kind of agreeing with the Gorax, It's very good but is it becoming an auto include because its THAT good or because the Argus is still lackluster other than it's animus?
Seriously, what else is there?

Can he be fixed? He's not worth 5pts, maybe with some arm or health increase (I wouldn't want to increase his combat abilities further) he could be?
There's nothing to nerf on him, nothing is overpowered that you can point to, he just has a unique position in the Circle Orboros.

I'd like to add Morraig to the list of models to question.

[Thracy11]

So what's your argument? There are certain things within Circle that do their job better than any other choice? A job that Circle needs done, because it has so few choices to get that job done?

Reading over this I began to think, "why is it that these models are being framed as 'too good' and our other models are not being framed as 'not good enough'?"

You are, after all, talking about things that are not "massively overpowered winning every game" but that are "better enough than every choice, that it really stops being a choice".

So .. what should we take away from your post? These models are too good, our other models aren't good enough, or we are just right?

It seems like "we are just right" is what you're saying, but I'm not sure.

[Zyrael]

Ur not off base with either issue actually.

The gorax is becoming too much of a focal point of power. That is absolutely true. But the fix is across the board increases to mat and pow (not by 2 but by 1) to many of our heavies and at least one of our lights. It irks me that that component of list building does itself but the fix is worse than the problem. You increase the MAT and POW of our fuzzies all over and you get far more moaning. Personally I think the Gnarlhorn needs +1 pow (just look at it) as does the Shadowhorn.

Two of our warlocks have the ability to buff hitting power (baldur and eKaya). which gives those some flexibility in beast selection but the rest are reliant on the gorax.

You could make a good claim to decreasing the overall potency of the Gorax and making it more support. Lowering his mat back down to 5, lowering his pow, nerf pain response, lower fury to 3. But to make that agreeable for circle players you'd then have to make him cost 3 points.

All fixes seem to not work.

Now about the Ravagers. They are good. Too good? no. They aren't better at what they do than comparable units, and they are considerably more fragile and expensive when compared to others. In fact they are the most frail medium based infantry in either game... to a fault. Cross faction tech tends to cost more, which is why Circle players don't mind the price tag. Proper utilization of the Ravagers leads to great results, and if you've seen great circle players in action you definitely know they are good. But they are necessary. The rest of our infantry choices LOST clearing ability... so just keep that in mind. I'm of the mind set that the last tweak the unit needs is giving them back camouflage. And then POSSIBLY increasing the cost of the UA by 1. 2 is pretty cheap for what he does.

[Mutton]

Ravagers die to any sort of ranged fire; they hit hard, but if you don't have a nice big forest to hide behind, they die like flies. In general, I think the Gorax is right as is; I only cast the animus when my beast is on a one way trip anyways.

[DemonCalibre]

What you should take away, that these models might be too good and need leveling off.

Let me explain another example, In MK1 Khador Iron Fang Pikemen weren't broken or perhaps were only slightly broken, they were just slightly ahead of the power curve, not insanely ahead of the power curve, but enough to notice.

What happened is they by in large relegated all other Khadoran melee infantry to the dust bin, which for the most part were totally viable units, but were outclassed and there for Marginalized by Iron Fangs. If you look at the results of MK2 Fangs got dialed back a little bit(not a huge bit), and some other units stayed mostly the same(Kayasy, Shock Troopers), and some got dialed up (Winter Guard), and now Khador has a much more compeditive choice for main stay infantry.

My concern is we are going to set up a situation where Ravagers are far enough ahead in the power curve, that they are going to marginalize everything else.

As for Need, I think that is a bad justification for units that are too strong. If Circle needs units that are arguably too good, then Circle of Orboros has much farther reaching problems then the single unit, which is an issue beyond the scope of what I want to talk about in this thread, and honestly beyond the scope of anything we could hash out with any civility on a forum.

I think the Crux of the Gorax problem is Primal, We *need* it, many of our beasts just can't push out the damage that a heavy should without it(Gnarlhorn/Pureblood), I think the answer to this is reducing the need for Primal. I think if the Woldwarden got made into a legit anti-beast choice(say like pow 17 on it's feats, and maybe a higher cost) so it becomes a choice, Gorax + Furry beast or I can dial back the power and go slightly more Budget with a Wold, Then it would be a choice, not a huge choice, but at least a choice.

Edit: I could be wrong about the Ravagers, though they still might end up being nearly auto-includes, as they basically have the monopoly in circle for hard hitting infantry, and also just happens to double for the most part the usefulness of our other infantry, quite likely leaving them out in the cold, that is the basis for my concern.

[Mutton]

Whoa, IFP didn't marginalize Kayazy AT ALL. Kayazy were insane in mk1 for different reasons. Shocktroopers were marginalized by Demo corp, not IFP.


All that said, I get your point. You just chose a bad example. I don't think Ravagers are ahead of the power curve because they die so easily. They are very powerful, but abilities such as Tough or Undead screw them good.

[blue loki]

The Gorax is definitely good, but not too good and definitely not an auto-include. Why? Because of the changes to frenzy. In MKI, I did not use the Gorax that much do to my dislike of the uncontrolable factors that frenzy induced combined with the other negatives like transfer negation. Frenzy is now even more of a negative than it once was. I'll definitely use the Gorax a portion of the time, it would be dumb to not give all our tools some play time, but it will definitely not be an auto-include.

As for the Ravegers, yes the are incredibly accurate and potent, but they still die to a stiff breeze. Their drop in ARM really helps balance them out I think.

[Rosicrucian]

I definitely follow you on the Gorax, less so on the Ravagers. I certainly am not a fan of being dependent on such a fugly model. However, as it is almost all our casters really need him and without some offsetting hitting power elsewhere we'd likely be in trouble. I'd be overjoyed to see the Gorax brought down a peg or two in exchange for +2 P+S on our heavy constructs. As it is, the Gorax feels like the Choir of Circle. Ugly, stupid looking choir.

[Mutton]

I definitely follow you on the Gorax, less so on the Ravagers. I certainly am not a fan of being dependent on such a fugly model. However, as it is almost all our casters really need him and without some offsetting hitting power elsewhere we'd likely be in trouble. I'd be overjoyed to see the Gorax brought down a peg or two in exchange for +2 P+S on our heavy constructs. As it is, the Gorax feels like the Choir of Circle. Ugly, stupid looking choir.

Ugly, stupid looking, one shot Choir.

Really, if I ever use it, I it tends to either be a one way missile or I have to provide some Shifters for it to gnaw on.

[Zyrael]

I just put in some feedback on the Pureblood and my suggestion was to take the opportunity it's redundant animus provides to offer an alternative to primal accessible to any caster but without directly increasing the power of our beasts.

"Spirit Rending - The first melee attack made by target friendly Circle warbeast during it's next activation gains Armor Piercing." Rng 6, cost 2.

In the extreme example of arm 21, ur adding 10 dmg to the overall activation, IF the model hits with the attack. Now it's not as good as the +2 mat and 2 extra dmg per attack (up to 7 on any of the fuzzy heavies). But it is different, and an option.

Plus it fits the fluff of an ephemeral phasing claw passing right thru the armor of an opposing model. Plus it has some use on Construct heavies.'

It's an idea anyway.

[DemonCalibre]

We will just have to agree to disagree about MK1 Khador.

[DonJean]

Yeah I have to say I don't see the Gorax as a must have. The reason the Saytrs and the Pureblood don't put out the damage of a Melee focused heavy is because they aren't Melee Focus heavies. To me they are Utility heavies that can put out some hurt but bring more to the table.

If you want the melee beat stick take the Feral which excels in that regard.

Primal causes a frenzy and these days that is actually a penalty, it doesn't work on half of our beasts (Constructs) which also means this beast does nothing in certain armies.

It's balanced for where it is. The problem is actually our other lights are far more lack luster and situational.

Don't have ravagers and didn't have problems playing against them as either Cryx or Cygnar so far. But from what others have said is they are pretty much Stormblades and people are aware of that and there are counters in every faction for it.

[Amarel]

The Gorax isn't a must-have for me, and considering the downside of Primal (with the new Frenzy rules) I'm not using it every turn.

[Bakemono]

In my opinion the Gorax has always been an auto-include. This is partly because I"ve always been a player that relies on Warbeasts rather than infantry. The Circle lacks the power to cut through high ARM opponents and the Gorax is more or less our answer. He is an efficient Fury battery, and a great damage transfer slave.

That being said, I don't think there is a problem with the Gorax. If there is an issue, it is our lack of other options. The Gorax isn't tilting the balance of games toward us in any unfair way, nor is it so cheap/effective that people are spamming it. Based on the evidence, I'd say Privateer got the Gorax just right. It compares well with Light Warbeasts and Light Warjacks. It is a workable combatant with a specialized function that isn't redundant.

I can't really comment on the Ravagers. While I own them, my style of combat doesn't lean heavily on infantry with Hordes (I think it foolish). I find the Ravagers hit hard if/when you can hit with them. Like all infantry they die too easily for my taste and provide too little board control because of their small numbers. I haven't seen the Ravagers tilting any games either. They appear to me to be a workable unit, but very situational. This doesn't make them "too good" in my opinion. It makes them a liability. I like models which function the same in most situations. I'm very utilitarian in that respect.

[UnderWood]

Yeah I have to say I don't see the Gorax as a must have. The reason the Saytrs and the Pureblood don't put out the damage of a Melee focused heavy is because they aren't Melee Focus heavies. To me they are Utility heavies that can put out some hurt but bring more to the table.


So your pretty much saying that every single heavy we have apart from a feral is not there to kill other heavys its there for utility and that there not melee focused.

pureblood
gnarlhorn
shadowhorn
warden

Thats pigeon holing our warbeast choices even more as you take a utility piece after you take your kill pieces to enhance them.

If your not taking a gorax you have to take a feral its as simple as that you can slam and smite and throw to your hearts content but with shake off that wont stop your opponent.

Without a gorax our warbeasts fall flat none of them are capable of killing a heavy and with the way systems work on warjacks may not even be able to take out any systems.

Really for any of our heavys to accomplish the job of a heavy we ahve to take a gorax.

God help the warden **** in melee and **** at casting spells.

[magi]

What about giving the +1 MAT bump across the board, and making the Gorax's animus "+2 Strength. When this animus expires, make a Frenzy check." or some such.

[DemonCalibre]

Hitting isn't the problem Magi, it's hurting, I think the answer isn't to make all our beasts better, but make Megalith and the Warden, hit hard enough that i can take them instead(with a suitable price increase of course)

[DeeCius DeadCloud]

The thing is a lot of lists build themselves based on what you use in the early parts of list building.

I've taken a few furry warbeasts, I throw a Gorax in since its utility is like that of a choir or arcanist. I'm using eKaya, I take a Woldwyrd for Arcane Killer (since I believe it still reads "upkeep" not "enemy upkeep").

On Ravagers there are units that will always get considered for a list because they fulfill so many roles. Right now the Ravagers are that unit for Circle, in the same way that Winterguard are right now for many Khador players (something I find myself using in many lists), they're just so useful its hard not to consider them. This isn't an issue with the Ravagers (nor Winterguard) and not truly an issue with other aspects of the faction, its just that presently there isn't any other unit that can do so much. The way to "fix" Ravagers would be to make every other option a bit more viable than they are right now.

Winterguard are cheap and therefore easier to understand why people would consider them a lot for lists. The fact that we have Circle players willing to take a full sized Ravagers unit with attachment could well be a sign that Ravagers really outclass our other infantry by quite a distance, since those players aren't considering a couple of cheaper units in their place.

[Bladestorm]

I've always found hitting at least as much of a problem with the mat 5 woldwarden - it just doesn't do it consistently against all but the very lowest of def scores.

[Nalik]

The Gorax isn't a must-have for me, and considering the downside of Primal (with the new Frenzy rules) I'm not using it every turn.

Not really a must have for me either, in fact I have yet to feel like I need to use him at all when I have an Argus available. We could be using different table setups as others but in our group tend to stick to the old steamroller templates. I get so much more mileage from the Argus animus then I would the Gorax.

[bushman101]

The Gorax is nice, but far from a auto-include. I just haven't had any moment that screamed 'He's awesome!' with the Gorax.

I'm hating Ravager's right now. They die way too quick. Why they lost -2 ARM is beyond me. The hit points don't seem to really help keep them around, IMHO.

[magi]

Hitting isn't the problem Magi, it's hurting, I think the answer isn't to make all our beasts better, but make Megalith and the Warden, hit hard enough that i can take them instead(with a suitable price increase of course)
Oh, I agree. That's why I took away the +2 MAT bump. Then just give a permanent MAT increase to the models who need it, like the Wolds.

[Zyrael]

the lack of hitting power on our beasts is really epidemic. Sure the Feral still stands out but the pt of MK II was always supposed to promote diversified list building. If we have to start every list with a Feral and maybe even a gorax depending on local meta... how much freedom do we really have?

Btw... the Shadowhorn has the lowest hitting power of a heavy in the game... PERIOD... it's an embarrassment to the name "heavy warbeast". It couldn't take out a light warjack in it's current shape.

[DemonCalibre]

In the Shadow Horns Defense, his hitting power was always terrible, He is also the cheapest Heavy Beast in the game.

I would weigh in more, but I haven't played him, but quite frankly with how potent double handed throw in, and his Agility, I don't foresee myself being particularly upset about his performance.

[Scyldemort]

I usually don't field the Gorax. For the same points, I actually prefer the Argus. Especially if I'm fielding a Feral Warpwolf without Pureblood backup.

[69Lazarus]

Autoinclude isn't always a bad thing. I think it's only bad when it automaticially invalidates something else it competes for.

[YabaBaga]

I rarely take a Gorax and I've never had trouble putting out damage when I've needed it.

[Cantor]

In the current edition of the frenzy rules, I see little use for the Gorax outside of the odd Mohsar list to abuse Pain Response.

[UnderWood]

In the current edition of the frenzy rules, I see little use for the Gorax outside of the odd Mohsar list to abuse Pain Response.

Really?

You see no use for +2MAT and STR how are you going to deal with behemoths or the avatar?

What are you going to do when your opponent camps focus?


Are you just going to have a feral warpwolf in every list you make never taking our other living heavys.

[LEJKaya]

If you have a feral you can live without a gorax. If you don't its almost compulsory... the only other time I may not take one is in a construct list.

Gnarlhorns and purebloods will take more than one activation to kill certain heavies.

Now... you can cope without one. It takes a lot more effort and coordination to have multiple units ready to take out a single enemy heavy but its doable.