If the character restrictions come into effect for SR2012, I'm going to start Legion.
If the character restrictions come into effect for SR2012, I'm going to start Legion.
I'm new to the game, and slightly confused. What is the character restriction rule everyone is referring to? I'm at work and can't look it up, but judging from the most recent posts it isn't even out yet? Just trying to understand what the issue is.
I guess it's a good thing for me that I don't use most of our characters all that much.
My DJ and Darragh are still in pieces. WSC? I have a hard time fitting them into most of my cryx lists. The only one I take with any regularity is BLT.
The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that I was planning on taking my Mercs out for a spin next year.
As for the format, I like it. It gets old to see the same armies over and over. I also tend to like the Tier tournaments too for a change of pace.
Hordes is underpowered eh? Guess that is a nice change of pace from the "OH NOES! HORDES IS OP!" cries. I'll also point out that Gencon Hardcore at least had the final two as...Skorne and Skorne. Huh. And this is a format where no one's characters were restricted so everyone could bring whatever they wanted. And I see certain Hordes players routinely do well in tournaments.
No, that entire line of thought is groundless. Once again, if eGaspy was SOOO broken, if Cryx was SOOOO broken as so many love to claim, then why don't Cryx take at least most of the major events? They don't because the balance is much better than people want to give credit for.
For love. For honor. For Devilsquid.
I would never say hordes is underpowered by any stretch. If anything Warbeasts have a slight edge on jacks due to their very nature of being vastly more diverse in a turn. Not to mention their casters can be a whole lot rougher to assassinate. They also tend to get better milage from their effects, animus and upkeep combos , which is by the nature of hordes their biggest strngth.
My thought is that they just don't have as many character choices as the WM factions do and so they want to limit the WM choices of characters because hordes doesn't have such a broad selection. Has PP ever said why they want the format to be like this? I mean there are many other ways to run these events without limiting your model choices. So they have to have a reason for doing something like this?
Last edited by Baenre; 08-26-2011 at 10:51 AM.
I don't know what your standard of "proof" is, but I have seen many attempts at "fixing" games for the competitive scene by adding restrictions. While they initially succeeded in shaking up the meta, once the dust had settled the result was always a narrower meta with fewer top-rated choices, not a more even playing field as promised by the people lobbying for them. I have never seen restrictions make more things viable.
In this case, the restrictions only serve to elevate some builds and tear down others, semi-randomly. Swapping one set of auto-includes/first choices for another. It might feel "fresh" now, but once everyone figures out what the strong non-character dependent builds are (that process has already started, in this very thread), the freshness will wear off. Then what will they do? New restrictions every 6 months? Or actually fixing the problems of internal faction balance?
IMO, this format is not about balancing the game(which is very balanced in the first place), It is simply another way to run an event. In no way is this gonna be the norm for every SR run in the future, it is simply another OPTION for people to run just like hardcore, Mangled Metal, or theme list-only events.
Simply curious, Any of the people that are so much against this, have you played in this format yet, or is this just theory? I'll be honest, I haven't played in this style event yet, but we have one scheduled for next month and I am excited to see how it does play out for myself.
Now writing for Neomorte.com
"Almost only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes... And black oil."
For Kith and Kriel: Your Guide to All Things Trollbloods. Ver. 2.0
Now if this were more than just a variant (like Hardcore), then I think you could have a point. I don't see this as becoming standard that fast purely because it forces you to have a very extensive collection. Nobody would be able to bring their side armies to tournaments/conventions anymore.
As for "restrictive fixes" vs. balancing factions out. I don't see the character restrictions as a way to balance the competition. It's a way to keep people from automatically throwing Banes, Tartarus, Gerlak, & Deathjack/Malice into 95% of their lists. It makes the game a little more fresh and lively as you put it, which is fine by me. Personally, I wouldn't get bored of this type of thing for quite a while because the Warmahordes model count is pretty large, and IMO, a lot more things are viable in this format.
I think it's interesting. As pointed out, it makes players bring truly different lists each game.
Character restrictions will really hurt Merc players. Everything they have is character driven.
Imho (as an Ex-40k tournament player from Europe, where TOs loves to restrict stuff) restricting characters is just bull. There are two major reason why people opt for restrictions:
A) Balance and B) variety
If WM/H was as badly designed as the SciFi product of the big UK gaming company, using restrictions may make some sense on a first glance. But first of all WM/H isn't and even if some models are better than others, restricting them won't do the trick. Esp. if we are talking about a possible tournament format hosted by the producers of the game themselves. I rather see a gaming company change the costs/rules of units that are "too good for their costs" instead of just restricting them. Or just keep them as they are and fix the ones that are too bad for their price, or maybe just go ahead and do both.
Restricting models is like trying to close the hole in a ship-hull with a couple of band aids. It may be enough to reach the harbor already in sight, but it surely isn't a long-term solution.
And variety? Restricting stuff means a reduction of possible combinations and a reduction of options can't lead to an increase of variety. It's not like every cryx 50pt pDenny list looks the same, just take a look at the army lists sub-forum. If there are certain "no brainer" combinations, they will be around even if you restrict the amount of characters in a single list or a set of tournament lists. If you can field Gorman only once in a set of 3 lists, most people will look for the two competitive casters that will do quite well w/o him and pick the one competitive caster for their third list, that makes the most out of Gorman. How should that lead to more variety?
Either people belief the opinions voiced and formed on the net or they don't. If someone builds his lists according to internet crxy knowledge mk2, his lists for a restricted format will resemble those of other players who do the same, as long as all of them have the models to field those lists anyway. And if someone doesn't give a damn about internet wisdom, but uses the models he has the most experience&success with, chances are high that his lists won't look like cheap copies of the ones paraded on the net anyway.
I don't mind getting stomped by superior players who also beat me in the list-building department. But I mind s.o telling me that I can't play Model X, Y or Z I spend my hard-earned money on. Not to mention that restricting the use of characters will inflate the number of models you need for a tournament, which isn't a smart move if you want to get new players into tournament gaming. Let's assume s.o collected Gorman, WSC, DJ and Bane+UA+Tart for his cryx thanks to internet wisdom. Those are not only 34/50 points, but also ~200$ he need to replace if he wants to participate in a 50pt/3 caster tournament.
I ran Venethrax + Coven in my last tournament, and won 4 of 4 games, so this option has always been viable. My particular setup wouldn't be in the character restricted format, however, as I had Tartarus and Gorman in both lists. If the format had been character restricted, I would've had to come up with different lists, which would likely mean either the Coven or Venethrax had to go in favour of a 'caster that's more suited for running without characters. That probably means Mortenebra or Skarre, so get ready to see a lot more of those two.Say what you will, but so far, I disagree. I'm a lot less likely to run lists like the Coven if Siege or eLylyth are always around as one of somebody's 2 lists. This format makes me a lot more willing to run them competitively (and yes, I know Gearloop has already done it, so let me be the first to say that he's a lot better than me and would kick my butt). I'd also be more inclined to run Venethrax if eEiryss wasn't in so many warmachine lists. So how does encouraging me to play more diverse selections make the meta more narrow again?
The meta becomes narrower, because it only restricts, it doesn't actually open up any new options. There's nothing you can do in a character restricted format that wasn't already possible. If you bring Venethrax, for example, you'll still need to be able to deal with Eiryss. The fact that she won't be in every list doesn't matter, as she'll still be in every list-set that can have her, you can't guarantee you won't face her, so protecting yourself against her will still be a concern. You'll still see Siege and Lylyth regularly, as they're not particularly character dependent.
The idea that something becomes more viable because something else becomes restricted to only one list is an illusion. Your favourite 'casters kryptonite will still be out there, and you'll still lose just as hard if you fail to account for it. What it will do is make players more likely to bring a non-character dependent second/third list, which means that some 'casters will be a lot more common than others in this role. 'casters that want particular first-choice characters in their lists must be chosen as primary 'casters or not at all. This means less diversity of 'caster choice and that's a negative in my book.
Another point against it. Not just lesser diversity in list choice, but also less choice of which faction to bring. No more padding out your second/third faction with mercs and bringing them to a tourney, when those mercs are mostly characters. Makes people more likely to stick with what they know and have the models for.Now if this were more than just a variant (like Hardcore), then I think you could have a point. I don't see this as becoming standard that fast purely because it forces you to have a very extensive collection. Nobody would be able to bring their side armies to tournaments/conventions anymore.
I don't feel I need any more reasons to say "no thanks" to more restrictions.
People who win tournaments don't take "chances" when it comes to matchups. They immunize themselves, to the furthest extent possible, to losing by a bad draw, because they want their skill at playing to be the deciding factor, not list choices. This format won't change that at all.
You have, say, two lists, one has no Eiryss solution, the other has one.
The opponent has two lists, one with Eiryss in it, the other without (kinda by definition).
When playing you, they will pick their Eiryss containing list all the time? Really? Because they have a roughly 50/50 chance of lucking out against you not having a (dedicated) Eiryss solution and with no regard for other factors? That's pretty sweet because you have a pretty reliable way of forcing their hand (and taking your anti-Eiryss list anyway).
Or maybe you're making this out to be a lot simpler than it is.
Another thing to keep in mind with this format is that it's not just 2 lists. It's 3 lists or more, and you can't use the same list twice in a row. So if they just used their Eiryss list, you can just laugh and pick your list that can't handle her easily.
The amount of of players paranoid by Eiryss is pretty staggering. Just go kill her and be done with it or have a WW nearby to cancel out her disruption. There are much more dangerous solos out there than her .
Personally, I have played this format several times now. And although at first glance is seems bull, it's not that bad for cryx. Outside of the WSC which is the only unit we have that can do its job, it's not bad at all.
Especially at high level play, you can't complain about Tartarus. Good players know what he does, and know he needs to die fast. Dont think for a second you automatically lose because he is not around. Most masters tournaments Tartarus is nothing more than a Curse-Bot, and cryx has enough access to debuffing casters to make his job almost non-essential.
Also...When I see a khador player stroll up to a list checking station for a tournament, and all 3 of his lists are EXACTLY the same except for a warcaster change, there is a problem with character and list building. Yes there are things as auto-includes with most armies, but seeing a player do this makes me sad. Why even try to make a variety of lists with players like this?
So true about Tartarus but you know if that's all he did i would still pay the 4pts to field him. That curse turns banes into their namesake.
I would miss WSC and Darragh the most, but on the other hand, seeing less Avatars and Kovnik Joes would make up for it.
Precision is the ultimate law.
The thought of getting a chance to NOT face Eiryss (either of them) is a big plus for me on this format. Sure, it will be hard to do two or more lists without all the good stuff that is WSC, but hey, Warwitch Sirens are not Characters, so I'm ok with that.