why aren't the GLADIATRONS gladiators?

[caravaggio]

i think everyone agrees that spartacus needs a squad to inspire. i have no doubt a squad is on the way (but i dont see anything likely in wave 6). if only the gladiatrons had been named gladiators instead of hunters spartacus would be very popular right our of the box!

besides, the gladiatrons are much more like gladiators than hunters anyway. the only other hunters are more like wild predators (marrden hounds, dund, dzuteh) and the gladiatrons dont really fit in as well as if they were true gladiators.

besides, they're called "gladiatrons".

...and i LOVE funky random bonding like an ancient gladiator and futuristic robots.

anyone else agree? it would certainly make the gladiators more fun!

[Rÿchean]

it sounds nice but the Gladiatrons already move bond with Blastatrons which makes them very playable at their current point cost....

I think if they were gladiators they would be under priced given what they could do with Spartacus or the Blastatrons...you could lead them out one round with markers on them and Spartacus

move 6, attack 4, Defense 4, pumping to 5 if engaged cyber clawing stuff...

the then next round markers on Blastatrons to move them up more and then range attack with homing device...???/

it is a nice thought but I think a 4 figure squad with that kind of synergies available at that point cost would be a little too much; granted it would give Spartacus a boost but, as you say, that is probably it the works anyway.

[kenjib]

Originally Posted by heroscape.com

Character Bio

Major X17 earned its reputation in the Soulborg fighting pits as a gladiator of renowned ability. It was granted a command position in the Soulborg battlefield forces, and later went on to earn the rank of Major. Like its Gladiatron counterparts, Major X17 uses a Cyberclaw to lock down its victims. With its immense size, it can lock down even larger opponents.

After years of refinement and expert programming, the defense mechanisms of this discilplined gladiator are rivaled by few others. It is well known that any warrior foolish enough to engage Major X17 in hand-to-hand combat is likely asking for certain defeat.

According to the bio Major X17 is a gladiatron and he began fighting as a gladiator. The bio for gladiatrons doesn't mention anything about being gladiators though. On the contrary, they are military scouts for the blastatrons. I think the bio for X17 implies something about other gladiatrons though.

[caravaggio]

i appreciate your comment, Rÿchean, but it seems to me that units are priced (rightly so) on their own "merits" rather than possible bonding or bonuses printed on other cards. making GLADIATRONS gladiators would not make them underpriced. it would make spartacus correctly priced and useful NOW and make for a really fun combo.

if units were priced based on possilbe bonding and bonuses printed on other cards the 4th Mass would cost 150 a unit!

[Nooblar]

The Gladiatrons, in terms of story, could just be named that because it's what they chose for their military unit name. Like "Rico's Roughnecks" in Starship Troopers (srry, first reference that came to mind). If they're scouts, then "hunters" certainly fits with that image.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by caravaggio

i appreciate your comment, Rÿchean, but it seems to me that units are priced (rightly so) on their own "merits" rather than possible bonding or bonuses printed on other cards. making GLADIATRONS gladiators would not make them underpriced. it would make spartacus correctly priced and useful NOW and make for a really fun combo.

if units were priced based on possilbe bonding and bonuses printed on other cards the 4th Mass would cost 150 a unit!

See, this comment makes the utmost sense, but that doesn't mean the designers agree with that.
There has been MUCH discussion about this, but some HSers (and IIRC the designers) are of the opinion that units should be priced based on the collected boni that other units can give them, instead of the corollary - that the unit GIVING the bonus should be costed properly.

I feel tht unless you properly cost the unit to begin with, then you shouldn't be retroactively adjusting the value when other cards come out.
Further, I think all cards that share a theme and direct point-costing justification should be released as one - Taelord and his minions should have been in one expansion, and all the Gladiators that directly cause Spartacus to be costed at 200 points should be released at once.

There is little excuse to seperate critical units from each other, when Hasbro is the one in control of when and what combination they come out in.
Seperating critical units from each other into different expansions basically makes for a period of time when they are unplayable competetively at those costs. Why do they deliberately do that?

Futher, any unit that affects your whole army is overcosted so far in HS. I think this is due to their mistake of costing units based on a 800 point army (my estimate) instead of the standard 400 point army.
Spartacus might start pulling his weight (like Taelord does) in large pointed battles. But at 400, he's a complete joke costing-wise.
It's too bad more people (and the official designers) won;t accept a simple graded-cost approach to Taelord and Spartacus and similar figs that they can't stay away from, even tho their complexity level does not support their inclusion in the game (with static point costs).

We HS fans worked out a Taelord costing on a graded scale (got more expensive the bigger your army got) that worked fine and more accurately estimated his effect on your army.

[caravaggio]

Originally Posted by kenjib

According to the bio Major X17 is a gladiatron and he began fighting as a gladiator. The bio for gladiatrons doesn't mention anything about being gladiators though. On the contrary, they are military scouts for the blastatrons. I think the bio for X17 implies something about other gladiatrons though.

hmmm, it think this supports my argument. nice find.

the bottom line is that i just love really random combos like the venoc warlord and theracus or 4th Mass and Marcus or roman legionaires and me burq sa. to me, it really opens up the game and adds to the "fun factor" to have such a crazy combo work so well (not to mention its an elegant social commentary).

...and when changing something so small could have added to the fun i get a little frustrated (especially when the word "gladiator" is in their name!). i also think making khosumet a darklord rather than a warlord is frustrating too (i sure hope zombies have some "darklord" & "undead" bonding). and dont even get me started on the ullar and einar specific warlord bonding. grrrr.

before this game goes out of production, i sure hope every card is connected to another card or two or three in some really fun way (like maybe ghosts will enhance everyone's "ghost walk" and carr will finally get a buddy for bonding!!!)

[Rÿchean]

EDIT:

nevermind....i don't have the desire to even try on this one

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Originally Posted by caravaggio

the bottom line is that i just love really random combos like the venoc warlord and theracus or 4th Mass and Marcus or roman legionaires and me burq sa. to me, it really opens up the game and adds to the "fun factor" to have such a crazy combo work so well (not to mention its an elegant social commentary).

I totally agree! Especially in a game with the background story relying so heavily on warriors pulled from different eras and planets. You must be a Nakita/Gorillanator fan.

[caravaggio]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

See, this comment makes the utmost sense, but that doesn't mean the designers agree with that.
There has been MUCH discussion about this, but some HSers (and IIRC the designers) are of the opinion that units should be priced based on the collected boni that other units can give them, instead of the corollary - that the unit GIVING the bonus should be costed properly.

i dont know what IIRC is but looking over the evidence (the cards to date) i would argue that designers do agree with me (gorillanators excepted). for the most part, the arguably overpriced units are the ones that have the insane bonding/bonuses printed on the card, not the units that could possibly benefit from the bonus. i dont think anyone is arguing that the point value of every card be raised 20 pts because Raelin could possibly give them a bonus.

besides, to argue for valuing all units based on all possible bonuses is to limit the designers freedom in the future to add to the rather interesting fabric they are weaving (present tense). i think everyone is hoping that future units will enhance the older ones just like valguard and the tarn vikings. cost wise, i think the designers have done a fantastic job of balancing the game. i think the distribution of spartacus could have been timed better to follow a gladiator squad rather than precede it so he's not sitting on a shelf collecting dust for 6 months waiting. ....or the gladiatrons could have just been called gladiators and settled this whole thing before it started!

[caravaggio]

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

EDIT:

nevermind....i don't have the desire to even try on this one

dont get frustrated, Rÿchean. we're all just giving opinions. there's no right or wrong, just killing time till wave 6.

Originally Posted by Hex_Enduction_Hour

I totally agree! Especially in a game with the background story relying so heavily on warriors pulled from different eras and planets. You must be a Nakita/Gorillanator fan.

yeah, i'm glad there's something to help the gorillanators out but i would have prefered something a little less specific. the nakita agents are pretty darn powerful as is, but hopefully soon there will be something that bonds with ANY agent or ANY tricky unit. the Nakitas and gorillas are cool but after a few games seeing them teamed up it would be nice to see them teamed with another unit to mix it up.

ie: a perfect solution would have been to give the girls PRIMADON bonding rather than GORILLANATOR bonding so that in the future when new primadons emerge, you would have a choice rather than having the designers lay it all out for you (and this gets at the heart of why i dont like "general specific" armies. i'd rather pick my own team than have the designers pick one for me).

the more open-ended the better, see? like the legionaires warlord bonding. that's fantastic and can lead to many good combos and possilbe future combos as well!

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by caravaggio

i dont know what IIRC is but looking over the evidence (the cards to date) i would argue that designers do agree with me (gorillanators excepted).

Let me put it this way :

I STRONGLY feel as you do, that the point costs should be incurred by the unit that affects the other units it was designed to affect.

But over the course of many many discussions here (mostly on .net) manu people disagreed with me on that point when actually talking about each unit seperately.