Lich Lord Overseer

[Gargamel]

Why would I waste 10 points on Arc Nodes I can't use?

To use the other abilities available to them?

To be fair, you'd only be "wasting" something in the area of 2-4 points.

[Sanctjud]

@Gargamel:
So in summary, he's a wasted
___________________
Personally, the model has to look damn cool for me to use him.

[Adurot]

I think he'll work well with pairs of Bone Jacks, Stalkers, Scavengers and Helldivers. Running the pair nets you two "Focus" so you're now doing more than the Warwitch, with the potential for more if/when you gain Souls.

[Lamoron]

1x Overseer: 3 points
2x Warwitch Sirens: 4 points

IF they had a 10" collection range
IF they had Stealth naturally
IF they were a point cheaper.

Either one of these would make me consider him...

[Dark Angel]

I like the idea of a couple of heavies being moved upfield in stealth mode by the ILO but truthfully, I'm not sure I can ever justify the cost and everyone has a way past stealth anyway.

Still, the idea of a tag team of a Reaper to pull things in and a Seether there to throw them back excites me even if it's too many points to justify. I might use it with someone like Thrax who is pretty selfish when it come to handing out focus but you could never fit it into anything less then 50 points and in fun games only.

[Karnstein]

I rather skip the ILO, upgrade the reaper to a malice and then send the jack I possessed in the backfield, after I gave him a nice whack with his claw. There the more or less mandatory Combine finishes him off and gives me a new seether. So why bother with a ILO+Reaper combo?

[Gorg]

after playtesting him now in a few games i agree, he is worthless. well, at least we cant complain about not having a jack marshall anymore.

[Lamoron]

after playtesting him now in a few games i agree, he is worthless. well, at least we cant complain about not having a jack marshall anymore.

Just add the word "good", and we're back in business with the complaining.

I'll be chalking this up to a case of "better err on the side of caution" when making a Jack Marshall for Cryx.

[theOREO]

The thing about the Desecrater for me, is I see it only going into one of my lists, Mortenebra, and he has to be in Battlegroup.. Feat turn, any living model it swings at should be more than dead unless your dice just completely hate you, heh.

People are looking at this guy, and just kinda, mashing it together with Jack A, B, and C.. ..and presenting it like.. "Here, this can work!" ..when instead, we need to look at him, and see where it's improving what we have as a faction.. ..and it's just not there.

So you get a free boosted this or that.. or a free charge and yadda yadda, is that really netting us anything over stuff we are already taking? Are you willing to pull that full unit of Bane thralls + UA for this guy and some jack he's attached to?

I can see taking him in 75pt games, as by then, most of my FA for everything else I'd rather have is filled, and I'd just have extra points for jacks and him anyways.. ..but that's it. ..once you hit 100pts, your FA doubles, so all of our amazing units/solos are available again, and will always be better to take over this guy.

I agree with what you're saying, especially about Morty wanting her jacks in battlegroup. I wouldn't consider the pair with her either. Actually, I would. But what I have in mind is far from sane. My point is that the Desecrater is our only jack that can work at full capacity despite being marshalled. That alone makes it a leading candidate. Whether or not the ILO is complete garbage is something I don't have enough experience to comment on, although I'm leaning hard toward 'complete garbage' so far.

[warlorddrax]

or you could take a Seether with it. (in Scaverous's TIER) you could have an effective 4 focus seether charge in and wreck something

but more importantly, it keeps that oh-so-squishy Seether from getting shot at as it advances by keeping it stealthed. it really helps to counter the Seether's main weakness

1 Focus from Seether (Soul Drive)
1 focus from Jack Marshal (i know it is different but it acts the same)
1 Soul that you start the game with (Tier Bonus)
1 Soul from that Dark Fire that you cast right before charging in
+free charge
= WIN!!!

very doable at 50 points.
not so much in smaller games

[Lamoron]

Seether + Overseer = Deathjack

I know which of those I'd rather have...

[FeignLife]

Seether + Overseer = Deathjack

I know which of those I'd rather have...

Yeah, me too...

WE&S...

[Sanctjud]

Moar Ponie....I mean BANES!

[PG_69Lazarus]

I'm hoping that the model will look super amazing or something....

[Chad]

Well, Chad being a designer myself (been designing games for 11+ years) granted not in the table top genre, my forty is in computer/consoles, but regardless I feel like I can still have an opinion on how something was designed.

The word you were looking for is probably forté. Of course you can have an opinion on how something was designed. As can I, as can any person here with a thinking brain and access to a computer and the internet.

Your desire to express your credibility in this arena is unnecessary for two reasons. First, I'm not swayed by your self promoted qualifications, as I have no real measure of them. Are you responsible for the creation of a well balanced game we've all played? I knew people growing up who had been designing games since they were in middle school, and that meant nothing, really, except a reflection of their interests. Your 'experience' designing games doesn't immediately make you any more qualified to speak to the design elements of this model than me, or anyone for that matter. I have yet to find a game that balances all elements perfectly. Chess, checkers, go, etc. They all have unbalanced elements. The more complex the game, particularly those with variable composition, the harder it is to strike a balance of a single piece within the game, and the more player skill has an effect on the results.

Second, the point I was trying to make is that it isn't your game, it's theirs. They make the game how they want. When you speak to what they should have given him, you are arguing using the wrong terms. It is more accurate to say "I would like him better if", since they didn't promise you anything, there is no point at which the word 'should' is appropriate. What you think it should have gotten is really irrelevant, since they designed the model, and you got what they decided. What you do with it beyond that is obviously your choice.

Yes sure, it's PP's game -- but guess what? We all play it and I sort of feel like that entitles all of us to an opinion regardless of our design experience.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that there's no automatic validity granted simply because you have the means to express it. The right to express an opinion should not be confused with the measure of the opinion's merit. Note that I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, only that it stands to the elements of your side of the issue that support your opinion effectively or not.

Personally, I won't take a strong opinion on him either way. It's too early, and I need to experiment to see if he works for me. I can see some potential, and I've stated the reasons why. He's not good with everything, just like most other marshals. But he is durable, convey's some survivability, and can operate to some effect even without his jack. With the right caster he may well prove to be an asset (I lean toward the focus hogs, in addition to Denny and Skarre). Time may show him to be inadequate, but throwing out a strong opinion based simply on a book reading or even with just a few games seems a bit premature.

A Warwitch Siren can perform the same task, at one point less...

Not the same. There is some overlap but there is distinction between them. Go back through the thread if you want a list.

after playtesting him now in a few games i agree, he is worthless. well, at least we cant complain about not having a jack marshall anymore.

This is precisely the kind of anecdotal dismissal that isn't helpful. Please. Provide the example, tell us how you tried to use it, explain why it was you think they were worthless. Provide good context to give your statement here a bit more than just an expressed opinion that you may well have held from the outset.

[AshenFang]

I agree with what you're saying, especially about Morty wanting her jacks in battlegroup. I wouldn't consider the pair with her either. Actually, I would. But what I have in mind is far from sane. My point is that the Desecrater is our only jack that can work at full capacity despite being marshalled. That alone makes it a leading candidate. Whether or not the ILO is complete garbage is something I don't have enough experience to comment on, although I'm leaning hard toward 'complete garbage' so far.

I don't disagree that you can get all three with him, but for me, it comes down to that.. ..I just don't think I'd bother putting the Desecrator into my other lists, as for the 12 points (Counting the ILO of course) I'd typically rather have something else, another unit or two more typically than not.

While I think he'd be best paired with the crab jacks, Desecrator for the above reasons, Levi to have a multi-firing stealthed weapons platform, or the Harrower as it really only needs to get that charge off before it's good to go on it's own.. it comes down to, the only lists I'd even take these jacks in the first place, it for Battle group spells and abilities.. ..as alone (or even with the ILO) ..the massive point investment isn't paying off for what else you could take, otherwise.

1 Focus from Seether (Soul Drive)

Seether has to be in a battlegroup for Focus to be Allocated to it, ala Soul Drive.. ..so giving him to a ILO kills that ability.

..and am I the only one that has stopped reading Chad's wall of text blind defense of this model? =p

[Gargamel]

Seether has to be in a battlegroup for Focus to be Allocated to it, ala Soul Drive.. ..so giving him to a ILO kills that ability.

This is a false statement.

[StaticMoot]

Really, what it comes down to that it's something different in a faction of good units and solos. If you want to field him, great. If not, then don't. Personally, if he has a cool mini, I'm going to put him on the field and make him work. So what if he's not competative. Don't bring him to tourneys then and just field him in silly games or for goofing off.

Just my thoughts.

[Chad]

it comes down to, the only lists I'd even take these jacks in the first place, it for Battle group spells and abilities.. ..as alone (or even with the ILO) ..the massive point investment isn't paying off for what else you could take, otherwise.

This indicates a playstyle distinction. I've often fielded them with casters that don't convey battlegroup spells, or even for those spells specifically.

What I still see (as I've seen in most arguments against him) at the core of this argument is that people want him to be categorically better than what our opponents get, or categorically better than what we already have. He isn't either it's really easy to just wave him off.

Interestingly, I mostly agree with you about what jacks he would work well with, I'd add Scavengers and possibly the occasional slayer in the right scenario, but ranged jacks are going to be where he works best, especially ranged jacks with a single shot.

Seether has to be in a battlegroup for Focus to be Allocated to it, ala Soul Drive.. ..so giving him to a ILO kills that ability.

The seether is probably the worst jack to pair him with, I'm not sure why people keep using him as an example. He's crap with the ILO at his cost level. He doesn't need the ILO to run effectively. It can run mostly on it's own without focus allocation already, why would you add the ILO to that?

..and am I the only one that has stopped reading Chad's wall of text blind defense of this model? =p

That just proves you're not actually reading for comprehension.

You can find at various points that my discussion is not blind support, nor is it any kind of assertion that he's necessarily all that good. I see potential in this model in certain circumstances. That is the long and short of it. Neither summarizing my opinion incorrectly nor attacking my preferred posting style is an effective way to discuss the issue at hand.

At this point, I'm going to refer you to my sig.

[theOREO]

While I think he'd be best paired with the crab jacks, Desecrator for the above reasons, Levi to have a multi-firing stealthed weapons platform, or the Harrower as it really only needs to get that charge off before it's good to go on it's own.. it comes down to, the only lists I'd even take these jacks in the first place, it for Battle group spells and abilities.. ..as alone (or even with the ILO) ..the massive point investment isn't paying off for what else you could take, otherwise.

It seems like we agree then. I sometimes run a Levi in bigger games, though. Playstyle and all that.

..and am I the only one that has stopped reading Chad's wall of text blind defense of this model? =p

Ignore button. Because it's strange to see Polonius posting here.

[Jaradakar]

The word you were looking for is probably forté.

Yes, it was -- thanks for the correction/clarification.

Of course you can have an opinion on how something was designed. As can I, as can any person here with a thinking brain and access to a computer and the internet.

Your desire to express your credibility in this arena is unnecessary for two reasons. First, I'm not swayed by your self promoted qualifications, as I have no real measure of them. Are you responsible for the creation of a well balanced game we've all played?

Well a couple of things:

First, to answer your question... yes I believe so, of course I can't be certain you've played any of the games I've worked on. The most popular and successful series I've worked on is God of War, specifically Ghost of Sparta. Though I've also worked on Harry Potter, Moonbase Commander, Total Annihilation and many other games.

Second, you seem to miss the overall point I was trying to make. Despite any qualifications I may have or anyone else, we all play the game. Therefor we all have experience, ideas and thoughts on said game that can be helpful and have potential to have some good ideas for PP. I personally feel that Privateer Press is a company that wants to hear players feed back. Much like when I hear feedback on any game I've worked on, some of the ideas/complaints/criticism are valid, sure not every one is. In fact a great deal can be ignorant thoughts or anecdotal evidence and can lack an overall understanding. Of course other times they might spark a designer to see something in a new light.

While any new or alternate design suggestions I provide won't help or change the model in the short term, that's not to say it could not contribute to long term changes. As we all know MK1 to ---> MK2 many models went through drastic changes and re-balances. I can only assume that history will repeat itself and that we'll again see significant changes when the time comes to go from MK2 to ---> MK3.

We also know that PP will continue to create new models, who's to say if a good idea is presented that they won't take it and run with it for a new model that will come out in a future date.

I have yet to find a game that balances all elements perfectly. Chess, checkers, go, etc. They all have unbalanced elements.

What are the elements you speak of? Could you define them? What is an unbalanced element? Overall you're very vague here. You seem to be putting down many of the classic games, which is a pretty bold statement that's not really backed up.

The more complex the game, particularly those with variable composition, the harder it is to strike a balance of a single piece within the game, and the more player skill has an effect on the results.

I'd argue that designers of Magic the Gathering and those of Warmachine/Hordes have done a pretty remarkable job of balancing and designing components that fit into a complex system that has many multiple interactions. Like piece of the whole it needs to be designed so that it can stand on it's own but not break the overall bigger picture. It's often the same balance between making a game accessible but also making sure it has depth. I.E. easy to learn, but hard to master design philosophy.

Second, the point I was trying to make is that it isn't your game, it's theirs. They make the game how they want. When you speak to what they should have given him, you are arguing using the wrong terms. It is more accurate to say "I would like him better if", since they didn't promise you anything, there is no point at which the word 'should' is appropriate. What you think it should have gotten is really irrelevant, since they designed the model, and you got what they decided. What you do with it beyond that is obviously your choice.

True. It was a quick internet post, something done in between actually working ;-)

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that there's no automatic validity granted simply because you have the means to express it. The right to express an opinion should not be confused with the measure of the opinion's merit. Note that I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, only that it stands to the elements of your side of the issue that support your opinion effectively or not.

/Agree

Personally, I won't take a strong opinion on him either way. It's too early, and I need to experiment to see if he works for me. I can see some potential, and I've stated the reasons why. He's not good with everything, just like most other marshals. But he is durable, convey's some survivability, and can operate to some effect even without his jack. With the right caster he may well prove to be an asset (I lean toward the focus hogs, in addition to Denny and Skarre). Time may show him to be inadequate, but throwing out a strong opinion based simply on a book reading or even with just a few games seems a bit premature.

I think we also agree on this point. I've not tested him. Once I do play with him, it will take many many games to truly have enough evidence to have a strong opinion on him or have enough valid test cases to prove that he is truly bad.

Heck his whole design purpose might be to fill the role of a Johnny (MTG Psyc player profile) and provide a model that most will find useless but to a Johnny will provide them a challenge of building an army list that will make good use of it.

I thought I made it very clear in my very first post, that all my initial thoughts and complaints about him are purely speculation, anecdotal and just theory crafting based on his stats and abilities.

Overall the reason I responded to you was the fact that your overall attitude seemed to be, "it's PP's game, shut up you're ideas are not worth anything".

While some of that might be partially true, typically good designers can recognize that good ideas can come from anyone, even those who are not a designer by trade. Hence I think it benefits PP to have a friendly open forum where the overall attitude is, "please share your thoughts and ideas, even if they might not be valid".

[BigK42]

Erg, wall of text posts over whether a presently bad model is bad... The commercials for the ILO are like: "Iron Lich Overseer - not as bad as the corruptor!" "Not as bad as you think!" "Mediocre: It's Almost Good!"

[Slice]

Erg, wall of text posts over whether a presently bad model is bad... The commercials for the ILO are like: "Iron Lich Overseer - not as bad as the corruptor!" "Not as bad as you think!" "Mediocre: It's Almost Good!"

I'd say it is worse than the Corrupter.

[Chad]

First, to answer your question... yes I believe so, of course I can't be certain you've played any of the games I've worked on. The most popular and successful series I've worked on is God of War, specifically Ghost of Sparta. Though I've also worked on Harry Potter, Moonbase Commander, Total Annihilation and many other games.

Interesting but still difficult to assert as relevant without more specific information. Ultimately it comes across as a bit of an argument from authority ("I'm a game designer so..."). Your ability to assess 'balance' isn't necessarily superior or inferior simply because of your experience, any more than mine would be at having played these kinds of games for almost 3 decades. The value of an opinion is based upon the merits of the argument for or against, not on the theoretical expertiese of those making the arguments - people just find it easier to trust the assertions when they are presented from a position of supposed or actual knowledge or authority.

Second, you seem to miss the overall point I was trying to make. Despite any qualifications I may have or anyone else, we all play the game. Therefor we all have experience, ideas and thoughts on said game that can be helpful and have potential to have some good ideas for PP. I personally feel that Privateer Press is a company that wants to hear players feed back. Much like when I hear feedback on any game I've worked on, some of the ideas/complaints/criticism are valid, sure not every one is. In fact a great deal can be ignorant thoughts or anecdotal evidence and can lack an overall understanding. Of course other times they might spark a designer to see something in a new light.

None of this I disagree with, but you used specifically loaded terms like 'horrible' and 'should' speaking only from theory craft (these are your own words).

Forum knowledge is really good at identifying what works for the masses. Easy to use models float to the top. It isn't as good, however, for finding those models that require a less obvious or more nuanced approach, because not everyone will be able to make use of them. There are few (very few) models that are explicitly bad in virtually every circumstance compared to other offerings. The ILO is no different. Not as blatantly easy to use as the Siren, and a bit off on the point costing (mostly due to lack of granularity in the points system I think).

My objection was not that you had an opinion, only that you stated the opinion using the term 'should' which is a poor term with regards to a company putting out their own product, without any kind of specific promise in place. Should implies an ought, and there is none here, there is only what is. It might have been better in the opinion of most people if it were easier to use, or more obviously kick arse, but there is no entitlement that should be assumed that allows for the use of the word 'should'. It's nitpicky, I know, but it's a fundamental difference in outlook about the design of models vs. what players might want.

While any new or alternate design suggestions I provide won't help or change the model in the short term, that's not to say it could not contribute to long term changes. As we all know MK1 to ---> MK2 many models went through drastic changes and re-balances. I can only assume that history will repeat itself and that we'll again see significant changes when the time comes to go from MK2 to ---> MK3.

I am very skeptical that this is the actual reason for the complaint. I won't say it isn't, but I'm fairly confident that most aren't expressed in this light, and it's highly unlikely that a couple of posts in a random thread is going to find it's way into MK3 if there is one.

What are the elements you speak of? Could you define them? What is an unbalanced element? Overall you're very vague here. You seem to be putting down many of the classic games, which is a pretty bold statement that's not really backed up.

I would have expected a game designer to be more aware of these things . I'm not putting them down, I play most of them. I recognize, however, that there is (likely) no such thing as a perfectly balanced game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-m...ntage_in_chess - White has a known advantage backed by the data. Black has second turn advantages as well, but they aren't the same and the numbers bear this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komidashi - for Go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe Tic-Tac-Toe can always be played to win or draw by the first player. The second player always has a forced response to get to the draw. X can do it from any of the 3 starting squares (side, corner, middle). This is the closest to a perfectly balanced game, but it isn't at it's core, since played perfectly, O is always obligated to make specific moves. It ceases to become at that point a game since it's always draws down to simple mechanical placement.

That is not to say that every game that has a turn based sequencing allows for absolute first mover advantage - as there are advantages to being second as well, but those advantages are different, the benefits they convey are not directly comparable which means there is imbalance.

I'd argue that designers of Magic the Gathering and those of Warmachine/Hordes have done a pretty remarkable job of balancing and designing components that fit into a complex system that has many multiple interactions. Like piece of the whole it needs to be designed so that it can stand on it's own but not break the overall bigger picture. It's often the same balance between making a game accessible but also making sure it has depth. I.E. easy to learn, but hard to master design philosophy.

Agree 100% without affecting the point I'm making. There is no perfect balance. But there are a lot of people asking for things to be better (often much) than they are, which may well affect how 'balanced' a model really is in the grand scheme.

Personally, I don't think the ILO is fantastic, but I don't think he's terrible either. People don't want to use him and that's all good. I suspect that sales will dictate if he gets some kind of augment in the future (something like stitch Thralls for souls, or a Vassal for magic attacks might be interesting). I'm just not willing to write him off just because 3/4ths of people don't like him.

I think we also agree on this point. I've not tested him. Once I do play with him, it will take many many games to truly have enough evidence to have a strong opinion on him or have enough valid test cases to prove that he is truly bad.

Note your language here, even in your desire to test him, you are still asserting that you simply need the evidence to prove he's bad. Your assertion may be completely valid, but the the bias you express here may well turn into confirmation bias before you're done.

Overall the reason I responded to you was the fact that your overall attitude seemed to be, "it's PP's game, shut up you're ideas are not worth anything".

I'd be interested if you could find where I said anything close to that. I don't recall saying 'Shut up' or even expressing, directly, that your ideas aren't worth anything. I might express where I think things are unnecessary, or more to the point, not productive in any practical sense. Any 'cred' you might have as a game designer doesn't carry weight with me, and since you were replying directly to me, I was informing you of that. Don't take that to mean I won't listen to your points, quite the opposite in fact, since the logic, examples, and conclusions are what matter.

Whether your ideas are worth anything to you, or anyone else, really has nothing to do with me. Whether or not they are worth anything to me comes down to the merit of your points, or, if anecdotal, valid context and completeness of presentation. It might be too much to ask for, but I can try.

[Jaradakar]

My objection was not that you had an opinion, only that you stated the opinion using the term 'should' which is a poor term with regards to a company putting out their own product, without any kind of specific promise in place. Should implies an ought, and there is none here, there is only what is. It might have been better in the opinion of most people if it were easier to use, or more obviously kick arse, but there is no entitlement that should be assumed that allows for the use of the word 'should'. It's nitpicky, I know, but it's a fundamental difference in outlook about the design of models vs. what players might want.

I think you've been taking my use of the world "should" too literal, and the fault is all mine for not taking the time to write out my thoughts in a more detailed and specific way.

(I often get lazy and just succumb to the masses of the internet, I know it's bad)

I use the term should, because from almost all of PP's previous examples (I'd argue a good majority of units/solos/warcasters and the like are said example) all seem to follow a design philosophy that Blizzard and a few other game companies also follow which is, "Make it kick ***, make it over powered". To break it down, typically you try to push design to the limits. You start off in a place that has units/powers/abilities that are super strong and then if you really need to you nerf or reduce them.

It's often everyone's gut instinct to go, "That's over powered" and they can often want you to tone something down. It's usually a good place to be in if everything falls into that category and PP has done a pretty amazing job at having most things hit that mark. Like wise it's design's goal to try to keep the *fun* intact and prevent others from reducing what was once cool into being just mediocre due to nerfs or reducing the effectiveness of unit/ability/power. It can be a slippery slope where you tone everything down, you end up having very little that is really cool/powerful/fun all in the name of balance.

My hunch is that might of happened with this solo. So when I used the term "should" that's what I mean ;-)

I am very skeptical that this is the actual reason for the complaint. I won't say it isn't, but I'm fairly confident that most aren't expressed in this light, and it's highly unlikely that a couple of posts in a random thread is going to find it's way into MK3 if there is one.

I think you'd be surprised how just how much people who work at a company read what others write/say/think about something when you've worked hard to create it.

I would have expected a game designer to be more aware of these things . I'm not putting them down, I play most of them. I recognize, however, that there is (likely) no such thing as a perfectly balanced game.

Ah, that's what you're talking about... you were very vague so it was unclear. I think it all depends on your definition of perfect ;-)

Personally, I don't think the ILO is fantastic, but I don't think he's terrible either. People don't want to use him and that's all good.

That's the point I was trying to express and why I was using the term "should" is because I think he's in this muddled middle ground -- the, "not good not terrible". Up to this point I've felt PP has had very few models fall into area. It feels out of character to me and makes me wonder if like MTG they are trying to design things that are a bit more subtle/harder to use on purpose (to give the Johnny player a challenge) or if they maybe failed at making him good due to not having room to have a powerful JM. Or perhaps it is a matter of the point system not being granular enough to find him a correct home (this is more of question on him being 3pts and how for that cost it seems like some of his abilities could maybe be stronger to justify the cost, again just theory). Maybe in the end massive amount of internal playtested required him to fall where he now is, we may never know.

--Hint hint, I'd love to see more NQ design articles :-)

Note your language here, even in your desire to test him, you are still asserting that you simply need the evidence to prove he's bad. Your assertion may be completely valid, but the the bias you express here may well turn into confirmation bias before you're done.

I think you're reading into more bias than what really exists. Again my fault for not picking more neutral words. I am not the greatest writer or speller and I often struggle with grammar. But it's always fun to duel with words as we have been (or at least, it's a fun challenge attempt to).

I'd be interested if you could find where I said anything close to that. I don't recall saying 'Shut up' or even expressing, directly, that your ideas aren't worth anything. I might express where I think things are unnecessary, or more to the point, not productive in any practical sense.

As I go back to look closer at your previous conversations, I think it was the line:

"making this whole suggestion a bit pointless," that got me riled up.

After re-reading it I actually *see* what you were saying. Like a Na'vi seeing something clearly and I think perhaps I was reading read between the lines. It was more of the vibe I was getting Vs something explicitly written. If it was purely my interpretation, then I apologize for being off base.

[Vex]

I'd say it is worse than the Corrupter.

Yeah, I can think of scenarios where a Corrupter would be useful. I can't think of scenarios (at least at 50 points or less) where the ILO would be useful.

IMO, a Warwitch Siren fills mostly the same role, is much more flexible (not stuck to a single jack, works with character jacks and jacks in battlegroups, has anti-infantry capability, and can shadowbind), and a point cheaper. Frankly, I don't think I would use the ILO at 2 points, so 3 is just insulting.

[AshenFang]

This is a false statement.

..I hate letting my friends use my Rulebook.. ..thought the previous discussion on the topic said this, same reason why Seether doesn't get it when made from the WSC? Not having the book on me, I can't check..

[ResurrectioN]

I'm hoping that the model will look super amazing or something....

I doubt you'll be happy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P5_fWQKxRc#t=4m28s

..I hate letting my friends use my Rulebook.. ..thought the previous discussion on the topic said this, same reason why Seether doesn't get it when made from the WSC? Not having the book on me, I can't check..

Autonomous jacks cant be allocated foc.
Mrshalled means he is not autonomous.

[Adurot]

My Corrupter continued to not suck again today. He didn't actually do much to be honest though. Shot and killed a Storm Smith, exploded him and took out a Storm Blade. Then my opponent told me about this handy little spell eStryker has called Velocity. Would you believe I've never played against eStryker before?

[khylis]

Here's a bit of fun theorymachine - not that I'm condoning the point cost of the model, but:

Master Necrotech Mortenebra
*
Bane Thralls + UA
Iron Lich Overseer
-Desecrator
Warwitch Siren

Iron Lich Overseer acquires a number of souls.
Mortenebra feats, and charges the Desecrator, getting into B2B with the helljack.
Warwitch Siren allocates it one focus.
Desecrator receives focus from banes, banes debuff armour of target.

Desecrator has a number of effective P+S 19 attacks equal to the sum of:
-Initial Attack
-Number of souls on ILO (3 souls max)
-Focus from WW Siren & Banes (2 focus)
-Interface focus (Max 7 focus)
-Number of Critical Shred attacks (Max 13)

The maximum number of attacks one can output in a single activation of the desecrator is 26, obviously not very realistic; but fun to take into consideration.

[FeignLife]

It's the 8 pts of "not doing much" that makes the Corruptor so maligned. This guy's pretty much in the same boat. He "could" do this or that, but I can think of several models in the him+jack point slot that could do the same "somethings" either better, cheaper, or while giving me more options.

[Karnstein]

Master Necrotech Mortenebra
*
Bane Thralls + UA
Iron Lich Overseer
-Desecrator
Warwitch Siren

Iron Lich Overseer acquires a number of souls.
Mortenebra feats, and charges the Desecrator, getting into B2B with the helljack.

I may be totally new to that game, but that theorymachine still has 2 major flaws visible to me.

1. According to my cryx faction book Mortis Interface only works on battlegroup jacks, so if the Desecrator is marshaled by the ILO it can't borrow Mortis focus.
2. Even if that would work, I think the assumption that the ILO managed to store 3 souls is a bit optimistic.

[FeignLife]

I'm not quite sure what everyone's obsession with getting the desacrator into melee is about either tbqh.

[khylis]

I may be totally new to that game, but that theorymachine still has 2 major flaws visible to me.

1. According to my cryx faction book Mortis Interface only works on battlegroup jacks, so if the Desecrator is marshaled by the ILO it can't borrow Mortis focus.
2. Even if that would work, I think the assumption that the ILO managed to store 3 souls is a bit optimistic.

Ack >.<" knew that TV wouldn't work, but I forgot to check out interface, oops. Still, the only jack that the ILO really works well with is the Desecrator currently.

[Deo85]

I can see people are quick to push this model out of the race before it really got going. But may I point something out that no one here has braght up so fare. The jack marshal is a free focus but also its a way to SEPARATE your jack and still let it get focus from away from your caster control range while not WASTING all the other things the Warwhich Siren can do.

Yes the siren is 2 pnts and this guys 3 pnts. Yes they both "give" focus to a jack. The difference is that the siren has two other tools in its box that require it to be able to move mid to front field most the time. This really dictates ware its going. We all universal agreed that jack marshal works best with range jacks so you got Desicrator + Levi + Reaper OR Scavenger thanks to sprint.

Now take a step back, breath for a second my fellow litchs and think for a second. You got a control range of 14" most the time. You guys are ALWAYS talking about how cryx can attack from multiple angles and that's there edge. Jack marshals allows your jack to put pressure from a different angle with out forcing you to move your war caster in possible danger spots to net them in range to get focus to work right. Is this not a good thing? It provides flexability AND allows the model to be stealthed. Now the soul thing is silly I admit as 2" cull soul has ALWAYS been stupid imo the new caster with thresher makes it good imo or Terminus with ravager going but thats it. Two casters... woot.

So before you get out your hate mail, pitch forks, and start a smear campaign remember this. If your sirens sitting back baby sitting your shooty jack then its a waist of 2 focus. If you GOT a stealth shooty jack sitting back forcing your opponent to move ware YOU want him to go well then game on folks you just got the element of multiple angles and ask any veteran strategist that is IMPORTANT in any battle. Chess is not about moving your pieces its about moving your opponents pieces.


Also Jaradakar and Chad lighten up for gods sake its just a game. You both got your different option and that is that agree to disagree. And Jaradakar shouldn't you be working? Last I checked most game company's in cali work there guys like dogs :P 3D artist represent!

[Vex]

Yes the siren is 2 pnts and this guys 3 pnts. Yes they both "give" focus to a jack. The difference is that the siren has two other tools in its box that require it to be able to move mid to front field most the time.

Good argument for taking another WWS. Bad argument for taking the ILO.

[Chad]

I use the term should, because from almost all of PP's previous examples (I'd argue a good majority of units/solos/warcasters and the like are said example) all seem to follow a design philosophy that Blizzard and a few other game companies also follow which is, "Make it kick ***, make it over powered". To break it down, typically you try to push design to the limits. You start off in a place that has units/powers/abilities that are super strong and then if you really need to you nerf or reduce them.

I'm not sure this is actually a design paradigm that is considered above all else. It's in their best interest to make the models kick ***, or at least make them interesting and fun, as that appeals to the masses more effectively.

What is more important, though, is to strike a balance in game. Noone wants to be ROFLstomped by the same 3 casters, the same 2 units, and the same 2 solos in every game they play. Which is why a measured approach is always better in game design. It's inevitable that there will be power differences, but the models should be within reason. When they aren't PP is forced to patch (Satyxis Blood Hag, E-Ghaspy x2) so it doesn't benefit them to go over the top at the outset when they're only forced to go back and re-design, trying not to over-nerf. Sure they make mistakes, but balance is, and should always be, the most important factor in a game where they want to sell the models they've designed.

The ILO is an example of one that ended up on the low side of the power scale, but it's a utility piece that sits in a fairly narrow niche, which is probably why people don't like it very much. It doesn't bother me so much, but I've also got Teraphs, Gudrun, Revenant Crew, and 1/2 a dozen other choices that have the same issue. They still find their ways into occasional armies.

I think you'd be surprised how just how much people who work at a company read what others write/say/think about something when you've worked hard to create it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I know that PP is active on their own forums. That doesn't change the fact that people aren't generally complaining because they hope that PP considers their complaints in future releases. They complain because they don't like things now.

It's also not likely that any single suggestion in any thread is likely to be adopted into future MK versions. Suggestions run the gamut of completely useless to completely ludicrous. Some are based on biases, others on genuine understanding of model interactions. Discovering which ones work or don't work is mostly sussed out by gameplay of their playtesters, it would be nearly impossible for them to filter all the suggestions for model changes in all the forum posts for all the factions in any meaningful way to extract the few good suggestions that are made. In the case of MK2 they allowed everyone input during the design process. Besides which, by the time MK3 might roll around, this thread will be on page 67 of back threads, along with all the other treads created when wrath was released. It just doesn't seem like a realistic expectation.

After re-reading it I actually *see* what you were saying. Like a Na'vi seeing something clearly and I think perhaps I was reading read between the lines. It was more of the vibe I was getting Vs something explicitly written. If it was purely my interpretation, then I apologize for being off base.

No worries. Tone is sometimes hard to discern. Please know that one of my forum credos is "Don't take it personal, don't make it personal". Which means I generally direct my discussion toward the statements and the facts as best I can (I'm not perfect) and not at the person making them whenever possible.

Ack >.<" knew that TV wouldn't work, but I forgot to check out interface, oops. Still, the only jack that the ILO really works well with is the Desecrator currently.

I'd suggest also Harrower, Scavengers (possibly 2 at the same time!), Reaper, Leviathan to a lesser degree, perhaps the occasional slayer. I would even suggest Ripjaws if you want boostable AP attacks with stealth on the approach and no FOC investment and don't need the arc nodes.

I can see people are quick to push this model out of the race before it really got going. But may I point something out that no one here has braght up so fare. The jack marshal is a free focus but also its a way to SEPARATE your jack and still let it get focus from away from your caster control range while not WASTING all the other things the Warwhich Siren can do.

You will see this suggestion (separation of forces) earlier in another thread, as was the either/or difficulty with the Siren. I suspect that many are aware of the arguments in that thread already, which is why they haven't been mentioned.

Also Jaradakar and Chad lighten up for gods sake its just a game. You both got your different option and that is that agree to disagree.

Please refrain from asking other poeple to stop posting. Jaradakar and I are having a perfectly reasonable conversation about particular points of the discussion. Neither of us is attacking the other and, so far as I can tell, both sides are being respectful. Why would you discourage that kind of discussion in such an exasperated manner?

I would encourage you to avoid Hyperbole (hate mail, pitch forks, smear campaign?) if you want to convince others that you are right.

Using chess as an analogy to warmachine is only effective on the surface, it declines rapidly if you need to read too much into it. Your statement about what any 'veteran' strategist would say is important in any battle is not wholly objectively true. It's an aphorism that might have some elements of truth, but dies quickly as the complexity increases. For example, it would be completely true in Tic Tac Toe, somewhat true in checkers/chess, and hardly true at all in Warmachine.

There are times when you want your opponent to do something specific. Kill this model, or protect his caster and not be aggressive, but you cannot accurately predict exactly what response your opponent will have because the sheer number of options he/she has available at any given point is unfathomable.

Even in chess, the number of movement options you have is limited - alot, but limited (over 200 I think with promotions). On a warmachine tabletop, I'm not even sure it's possible to calculate, since you have, free movement, variable distances, multiple movement and attack type options, special abilities, spells, etc. The best you can do is attempt to induce a general response, but even that can only take you so far. All in all, not really a defensible aphorism. Not in Warmachine at least.

[AshenFang]

Master Necrotech Mortenebra
*
Bane Thralls + UA
Iron Lich Overseer
-Desecrator
Warwitch Siren

-Number of Critical Shred attacks (Max 13)

The maximum number of attacks one can output in a single activation of the desecrator is 26, obviously not very realistic; but fun to take into consideration.

A few things here, first.. taking a jack out of her Battlegroup is just.. a waste of an entire army, honestly. You aren't getting any of her abilities except on feat turn.

Second, Crit Shred simply generates another attack. It's not like Blackspot where it generates a Blackspot Attack, so if you keep critting, you can keep getting more attacks from Crit Shred, the only limit is to when your dice decide to no longer love you.

I'm not quite sure what everyone's obsession with getting the desacrator into melee is about either tbqh.

I'd only care about it in a Mort list. Crit Shred is amazing if you base a Warbeast or a living Warnoun. Under Terminal Velocity and feat you get..

3 dice to hit, if you don't crit, reroll. I'd toss a few focus on the guy, for those few times that the chain breaks, (assuming the target isn't already dead) so you can start all over again, or get it going on another living thing you've based. End of the day, Dice are dice, but over all, it has very nice odds to keep going.

[Chad]

I'd only care about it in a Mort list. Crit Shred is amazing if you base a Warbeast or a living Warnoun. Under Terminal Velocity and feat you get..

3 dice to hit, if you don't crit, reroll. I'd toss a few focus on the guy, for those few times that the chain breaks, (assuming the target isn't already dead) so you can start all over again, or get it going on another living thing you've based. End of the day, Dice are dice, but over all, it has very nice odds to keep going.

The best odds are at needing 3 or 4 to hit and you're sitting at just a hair under 44%. On a warbeast you're looking more into the high 30s, and against a DEF 15/16 you're looking more at high 20s. Not something I'd consider 'nice' odds.

Your best bet is an additional die, which leaves basically pSkarre with a boost to hit. That can be provided by Skarre or a Siren or an ILO, but you're burning that boost to hit on a gamble that it will yield another attack for free. At 4 dice to hit, you actually push over the 50% mark for much of the range. IIRC the top you get is in the high 60s low 70s. Good but still not necessarily enough to gamble on - as you get either a very high likelihood to hit for that focus with a decent chance at a second attack, or a decent likelihood to hit, low probability for second free attack, and a guaranteed potentially third attack for that focus.

[gcflash]

Or Gorman (black oil) with either Morty/pSkarre