Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8032798" data-attributes="member: 87792">I didn't mind the idea of theme forces (and definitely prefer them to Mk2 themes which were far fiddlier and where some of the most competitive lists only worked for a single caster) - but I thought they would be used to mix up playstyles a whole lot more than they were. What I was anticipating as a Skorne player before they came out was something like a beast theme that banned paingivers and had the buffs to make up for it, and a Circle list that borrowed a krielstone from the Trolls. I thought they'd take the Kingmaker's Army and go further, not just (for Skorne) have generic beast theme, generic venator theme, generic praetorian and cataphract theme, and generic Exalted theme. Oh, and Disciples of Agony.Possibly I remember more of an immediate drop-off after the new rules came out because Skorne. Where they arbitrarily just dropped the Def of all the titans by 2, cut a point of fury off almost all of them, dropped the armour of the basilisks by 2, and took the ability to grant free charges away from paingiver beast handlers. For no reason and with only a slight points drop for the heavies of the sort seen by most factions.And when you talk about the entire Skorne faction getting an entirely new set of rules, it wasn't so much new rules as significant buffs to almost every model. The base idea was the same but after the rewrite they just all got to do what they did better. Looking back at <a href="https://privateerpress.com/january-skorne-errata-developers-notes" target="_blank">the errata document</a> they decided not to make significant changes to the battlebox (despite the battlebox warlock (the general) being utterly useless because they forgot the Skorne design guidelines to the point they had to add a model that would be completely broken in any other faction to fix him)For how wide ranging the Skorne errata was, of the Skorne models that existed before Mark 3 and were not in the battlebox:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the fourteen warlocks (generals) they buffed ten. They have since completely re-written from the ground up one of the ones they didn't buff.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They buffed the pack and one of the lessers while making the other easier to take (not that anyone ever does)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the five light warbeasts they buffed three. They have since buffed the other two.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the seven non-character heavy warbeasts they buffed six.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the three character heavy warbeasts they buffed one and gave one a side-grade. They have since buffed the two character heavies that didn't get buffs.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the two gargantuans they buffed one - and have since buffed the other.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They buffed the only battle engine and less than six months later buffed it again. Admittedly it became OP after the second buff.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the fifteen available units that weren't light artillery they buffed thirteen either directly or through their attachments.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of the eleven available solos they buffed five.</li> </ul>Even this errata didn't put Skorne into the top half of the pack - it just meant they were no longer very comfortably last. The Exalted CID made Skorne top tier but that's a whole different story. There's a good reason Skorne players picked up a reputation for being salty and I have the impression the new edition was very badly received. For a year we were playing with the pre-errata Skorne. And any belief that PP designed balanced rules with a competitive game melted.</blockquote>

Verification