Carnivean: Spiny Growth

[jonconcarne]

Might be a bit too powerful though on thinks like a Raek, spine it up then have it jump into a whole mob of infantry, dare attack me and die!

The animus currently resolves after their attack is resolved, so it would just have to be a sacrifice. 3 guys to kill one raek or something.

I dunno if I think it would need to go up to 3 fury tho if it were to affect a unit. At that point it would never be cast on the Carnivean just cause it's so expensive. *shrug* I dunno. I don't see it right now as being horribly broken for 2 fury if they changed it to model/unit.

Edit: I just realized that if you placed this on a unit of legionnaires or other small-based infantry with a decent mat, you could essentially prevent any tramples because the trampling model would take d3 damage for every model he hits, regardless of whether or not he kills it. Then from the models that aren't killed, the trampler takes free strikes. That would make this animus absurdly powerful in that way at least. Thoughts?

[Necra-Chi]

I considered the option of increasing the price but then compared it with some upkeeps.

Many a defensive upkeep costs 2, gives about the same or more, and can be upkept for 1 focus/fury. We have to recast an animus.

I think this is fair.

I guess I'm tired of people telling us we have animi to supplement our deficient spell lists and then being surprised when the animus is actually as good as a spell.
We have to take beasts to supplement our spells, lose those spells when those beasts die, so those spells be decent. Not entirely as good asa spell, of course, because thet wouldn't be fair, but almost reaching the bar is appropriate.

I don't think +2 ARM and an extra effect on a unit for 2 fury that has to be recast ecah turn to keep it is entirely unfair. Its fanatstic, no doubt, but not unbalanced. IMO.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. I like that it encourages mixed arms armies and gives the carnivean a valuable role in them.

I don't think it should damage infantry.

[Soulblighter]

Yes but the warbeast can cast it directly onto the unit that changes things.

[Loveless]

Yes but the warbeast can cast it directly onto the unit that changes things.

I don't see how it makes any significant change if the warbeast casts it. If it does, it has fewer fury to do other things - boost, buy extra attacks, charge, whatever.

It cuts down on the efficiency of the warbeast, just as not allocating focus to a warjack cuts down on its efficiency.

Targeting it from a warbeast is no different than targeting it from an arc node - just a different source of the "power" - which is a function of Hordes, certainly.

[Necra-Chi]

How.

That's a valid reason for animi not being quite as good as spells, because we effectively have more fury to use than focus, although that's more debatable now, but it isn't strictly as good as equivalent buff upkeeps.

[Soulblighter]

the carnivean wont always be in melee right away though. when its not its going to be casting arcane shield on units left and right.

[Necra-Chi]

Yes. Exactly. Warbeasts can only cast an animus once per turn.

[Soulblighter]

besides I think its a bad idea to give legion access to a +3 ARM animi that can be spammed on every unit on the field. thats just encouraging legionnaire spam. Three units of ARM20 legionnaires? Potentially ARM22 with Thagrosh? theres no way thats going to happen. not unless its an upkeep animus.

[greenlock]

Another reason for animi to not be as good as spells is that they are available to all your casters. This gives you more versatility which is quite good as well.

[jonconcarne]

why is casting it's animus a real problem? Is it bad if our 11 point beast actually has something valuable to do on the first turn? I don't see it as being that overpowering of an animus. Very good? Yes. Too good? I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think no simply because Hordes doesn't have arc nodes. It seems reasonable to me. *shrug*

Edit: for the record, I think Necra is arguing for just the +2 arm and d3 dmg to beasts/jacks for target model/unit., not a +3 arm and d3 dmg to beasts/jacks for target model/unit.

[Soulblighter]

whats bad about it is that it can be spammed on every unit in your list. and since carniveans can help cast on your units it still lets your warlock cast some other spells on top of spamming the animus. thats ridiculously overpowered.

[hairsolo]

D3 damage on warjacks and warbeasts is just a bit too limiting. If my Carnivean is going to be charged by a warjack or warbeast chances are that my opponent is going to load it up on either focus or fury to destroy it.

So a warjack charges my Carni with 2-3 focus and only boosts to swing cause def 11 is easy to hit so....
Thats 1 for the charge. d3 damage on him
One for other initial attack (if he has it) d3 damage on him again
Then boost to swing. d3 damage again on him
Then boost to swing. - if he has 3 focus- d3 damage again.
thats between 2-4 attacks on my Carni depending on initial attacks and focus. Thats 4d3 dice with an average of what 8pts of damage?

Thats not bad. But its only against Warjacks and Warbeasts. Its only against Melee attacks. Its useless against ranged, magic, troopers, solos, warcasters, fire, corrosion, and anything else that is not a Warjack or Warbeast using a melee attack against the target of the spiny growth spell.

Now in using the spell I have found that I only really use it on the Carni when I am waiting for something to pop into my charge range to kill. I never use it after a charge or a attack. I want that fury for boost to swings, boosted attacks or damage on melee or spray attacks.

I wouldn't mind it being +3 arm and no d3 damage or keeping it at arm +2 and having it do d3 damage to medium and large based models. That way there is more of a tactical consideration when thinking about attacking the recipient of the animus and possibly making it more uselfull.

[greenlock]

Casting tenacity on your raptors is worth it for the round you know they'll get hit and that costs 3-5 fury. 2 fury for as many models as I can fit in a unit? And I can get it on 4 units/models with Vayl and Big C, with fury left for transfer and one upkeep? I think it is strange that pThagrosh got his -2 str as an inherent aura but that is only in his command. This would be more powerful, less limited in area covered and marginaly more expensive.

[Loveless]

whats bad about it is that it can be spammed on every unit in your list. and since carniveans can help cast on your units it still lets your warlock cast some other spells on top of spamming the animus. thats ridiculously overpowered.

To play devil's advocate here, what warlock is going to forego their (for the most part) already impressive spell list to "spam" a 2 fury animus on every unit every turn?

I don't see Lylyth1 or Rhyas bothering. Lylyth2...definitely not every turn. Thagrosh1 might, depending on the situation (Thags2 won't bother, though). Vayl probably won't, though she certainly has the Fury to bother. Saeryn has enough quality spells to practically pass by a unit-shield animus - besides, she has other things to worry about. Absylonia is still a mess, and barely warrants discussion on this point as she's likely to change a lot...I hope.

If I'm throwing this out every turn...sure, my infantry might live longer - might damage some 'jacks/'beasts on the way down. But what the heck is my Warlock doing? Apparently not saving Fury for transfers. Apparently not casting things like Manifest Destiny, Incite, Parasite, Blightbringer, or Rapport. Apparently not buying extra attacks or boosting anything.

I just don't think you'd ever actually be in a situation where you're going to throw out tons of Spiny Growth. Not at 2 fury per model/unit per turn.

It sounds awesome until you realize you don't have the fury for it and it's coming on an 11 point beast that would be wasted acting as a Journeyman Warcaster...

[Necra-Chi]

whats bad about it is that it can be spammed on every unit in your list. and since carniveans can help cast on your units it still lets your warlock cast some other spells on top of spamming the animus. thats ridiculously overpowered.

That's a fair point. I don't agree that its overpowered, because its costing resources, but it does highligh one advantage animi have over upkeeps, the ability to spam them.

A cygnaran army can put Arcane shield on two units for 4 focus and then upkeep both for 2 focus from teh army each turn.
With this animus we could feasibly put it on 3 units for 6 fury but have to keep spending 6 fury ecah turn to keep it up.
Add to this that it doesn't scale up very well with our warlocks. As our wralock FURY stat increases we find that they become more warbeast oriented. Its unlikely that Epic Thag or Vayl would play 3 full units of infantry, they might but they wouldn't be getting the best value from the spells feats and abilities. So as the ability to put out mutiple spiny growths increases it is more likely those spiny growth will go on beasts (and so be exactly like the present spiny growth) or be ignored for other spells.

Meanwhile 5 fury warlocks like Rhyas and Lylyth are saying YES! we can efficiently buff some of the infantry army we are almost forced to field with our low fury and control ranges.

I think it is a potentially powerful way to bring the low fury warlocks up to scratch.

[RoyalAssassin]

I don't think +3 ARM on a unit is overpowering - it's pricey and comes with significant opportunity cost (as Loveless observes). I agree that it'd make the Carnivean more attractive - no problem for me there.

What I don't like is that it encourages and reinforces Infantryhordes. I got into Legion so I could push dragon monsters around the table. Using a dragon monster to buff infantry make solid tactical sense in the wake of the Frenzy/THR changes, but I don't like what it does to the flavor and theming of the army. I'd rather see an animus that buffs MAT/RAT or does something to get the monsters back into the fight.

But, if Infantry is going to be the way things are from here on out, then from a strict effectiveness standpoint, I'm good with target model/unit on Spiny Growth.

[Soulblighter]

To play devil's advocate here, what warlock is going to forego their (for the most part) already impressive spell list to "spam" a 2 fury animus on every unit every turn?

I dont follow. Our warlocks already spam tenacity all over the place which has a lesser effect than +3 ARM. So if we already spam tenacity, why wouldnt we spam an animus thats even more efficient than tenacity? Animi dont work on units for a reason. Its because they can be spammed. If PP really felt animi on units was okay im sure we wouldve seen some in the game by now.

[hairsolo]

Also I like Necra's idea about allowing the animus to be cast on model/units. If that happend we would have to drop the d3 damage part or it would be bit overpowered when getting attacked by only Warjacks and Warbeasts.

Factions are changing. We no longer have the ability to fly into the center of an army and teabag the opposing WC/WL. By no longer being immune to freestrike we have become much more of a timid army that strikes only when the time is right and we need to be able to effect how and when that time comes.

An armor buff for units would make them something that could determine the tempo of a game. +2 armor keeps them from becoming AOE fodder and possibly a real threat. For some reason I see Hordes infantry as kind of a liability. The infantry is not as good as WM infantry. Most WL do not have as good infantry type spells as WM casters. While in WM infantry acts as a element that frees up focus that too many Warjacks will suck up. In Hordes it just removes points that could be spent on additional beasts to ensure you get your full fury every round.

[Necra-Chi]

To be clear I'm talking about +2 ARM and the damaging effect for model/unit, not +3 ARM.

Spamming tenacity is so overrated. Its great on a few key models, but not on units. Diminishing returns. I've played against tenacity spammers and won most of the time. Why? because they're wasting fury! Every fury spent on tenacity is a fury I could be spending on boosts or attacks. A boost is almost always better than a tenacity. My rule of thumb is that every time I boost, every fury is another dead guy or 3.5 damage on something bigger, and that's almost always better than MAYBE saving some damage on one model. I digress though. I just worry that too many people think spamming tenacity is a good idea.

hairsolo, I considered that the damaging effect would be more damaging on units, but it won't really. The thing with buff spells is that it typically has a similar effect regardless of if it is on a unit or a warbeast. They both take similar amounts of attacks to kill, and so the ARM triggers as often and the damage triggers as often. On infantry it might trigger more often causing more damage but against the things it damages, the ARM will be of less value to the unit. On a warbeast, against the things it damages the ARM will be of more use, but it might take slightly fewer attacks to defeat and so do less damage.

The only thing it really maybe escalated the damage against is thresher warjacks and beasts, but taht's still effectively just more attacks. And it would be interesting to have a counter to the new plethora of reach thresher monsters.

[Loveless]

I dont follow. Our warlocks already spam tenacity all over the place which has a lesser effect than +3 ARM. So if we already spam tenacity, why wouldnt we spam an animus thats even more efficient than tenacity? Animi dont work on units for a reason. Its because they can be spammed. If PP really felt animi on units was okay im sure we wouldve seen some in the game by now.

I thought the concept was to keep it at +2 ARM if the target was expanded to include units.

I don't see the point of it - from a background perspective, casting it on units seems especially odd for some reason.

The costs involved in Tenacity seem less restrictive than the costs involved in this proposed Spiny Growth.

If it's really a concern, they could always add the "May be cast once per turn." or "Caster ends their activation after casting this" stuff.

I think there would be better options, even with it affecting a unit. I don't see it as overpowered, I just see it as a "meh" as there are other things I'd want to be doing than throwing Spiny Growth on everything. This would be useful for Warmongers, but I wouldn't care to have it on my shooting units, for example.

I just don't like it - there are better ways to improve the Carnivean.

[Neutralyze]

To be clear I'm talking about +2 ARM and the damaging effect for model/unit, not +3 ARM.

Spamming tenacity is so overrated. Its great on a few key models, but not on units. Diminishing returns. I've played against tenacity spammers and won most of the time. Why? because they're wasting fury! Every fury spent on tenacity is a fury I could be spending on boosts or attacks. A boost is almost always better than a tenacity. My rule of thumb is that every time I boost, every fury is another dead guy or 3.5 damage on something bigger, and that's almost always better than MAYBE saving some damage on one model. I digress though. I just worry that too many people think spamming tenacity is a good idea.

hairsolo, I considered that the damaging effect would be more damaging on units, but it won't really. The thing with buff spells is that it typically has a similar effect regardless of if it is on a unit or a warbeast. They both take similar amounts of attacks to kill, and so the ARM triggers as often and the damage triggers as often. On infantry it might trigger more often causing more damage but against the things it damages, the ARM will be of less value to the unit. On a warbeast, against the things it damages the ARM will be of more use, but it might take slightly fewer attacks to defeat and so do less damage.

The only thing it really maybe escalated the damage against is thresher warjacks and beasts, but taht's still effectively just more attacks. And it would be interesting to have a counter to the new plethora of reach thresher monsters.

whats wrong with spamming tenacity again? last time i checked warlocks do it with extra fury..........

[Necra-Chi]

So first turn then.

[Killionaire]

I don't think +3 ARM on a unit is overpowering - it's pricey and comes with significant opportunity cost (as Loveless observes). I agree that it'd make the Carnivean more attractive - no problem for me there.

What I don't like is that it encourages and reinforces Infantryhordes. I got into Legion so I could push dragon monsters around the table. Using a dragon monster to buff infantry make solid tactical sense in the wake of the Frenzy/THR changes, but I don't like what it does to the flavor and theming of the army. I'd rather see an animus that buffs MAT/RAT or does something to get the monsters back into the fight.

But, if Infantry is going to be the way things are from here on out, then from a strict effectiveness standpoint, I'm good with target model/unit on Spiny Growth.

What? +3 ARM on Infantry AND the 1d3 damage? That's definately absurdly overpowered. No other spell even remotely like that exists in the game, and it greatly encourages spamming cheap disposable infantry (IE, 3 units of Legionnaires).

Legion is not an armor faction. It's a speed and attack faction. The Carnie is an odd exception, being the sole armored brick in the faction, as well as being fast and hard-hitting.

If it was +3 ARM and 1d3 damage, but restricted to beast only, that'd be perfectly fine and raise the Carnie's survivability, but no way should it go to a unit. That's crazy.

[Necra-Chi]

Legion is not an armor faction. It's a speed and attack faction. The Carnie is an odd exception, being the sole armored brick in the faction, as well as being fast and hard-hitting.

Says you. In my experience its a faction that dies in droves on the speedy attack. An ARM buff for units would be much appreciated. We could only really sustain it in the first few turns moving up. Yes the carnivean IS an exception. He hints at a style of play that we can't presently fully explore with the faction. If his animus brought that option with him, that would be great.

Stop thinking in terms of what legion did in Mk1. In my experience thus far we're different now. Not entirely different, but tweaked nonetheless, and ther are other ways to play now. What better way to strengthen other ways to play for the faction, and give a carnivean, a warbeast that I feel is iconic of the faction, a unique and valuable role.

BTW we're talking about +2 ARM. Royal assassin misinterpreted me I think.

[Killionaire]

I thought the unique and valuable role of the Carnie was being the toughest Legion Beast, with a lot of attacks. No other beast does it's beatstick role, with the possible exception of Typhon (a unique at that).

I think Legion's schtick still is to be fast and hard hitting, given how Wings still grant extra mobility, and several Warlocks specialize in mobility and delivery on target. The change in faction roles if any would be due to how certain infantry (most specifically the Legionnaires IMO) have changed.

[blitzmonkey]

I thought the unique and valuable role of the Carnie was being the toughest Legion Beast, with a lot of attacks. No other beast does it's beatstick role, with the possible exception of Typhon (a unique at that).

I think Legion's schtick still is to be fast and hard hitting, given how Wings still grant extra mobility, and several Warlocks specialize in mobility and delivery on target. The change in faction roles if any would be due to how certain infantry (most specifically the Legionnaires IMO) have changed.

I agree we are fast and hard hitting, but think of the example that was given about legion. A Dragon plays with its food. This possible buff would allow us to "play" more.

[RoyalAssassin]

I think Legion's schtick still is to be fast and hard hitting, given how Wings still grant extra mobility, and several Warlocks specialize in mobility and delivery on target.

How's that working out for you in practice? My table time looks pretty well in synch with Necra's. Die in droves is about the size of it; running fast attack, I can get comfortably into the fight very early, and then get eradicated by the return attacks. Extra mobility gets around terrain and such, but Pathfinder skirts nearly all the same things that flight does and it's damn near everywhere. Running a MkII list like a MkI list has brought me nothing but tears.

BTW we're talking about +2 ARM. Royal assassin misinterpreted me I think.

Typo - the 3 button is awful close to the 2. Sorry for any added confusion

[blitzmonkey]

How's that working out for you in practice? My table time looks pretty well in synch with Necra's. Die in droves is about the size of it; running fast attack, I can get comfortably into the fight very early, and then get eradicated by the return attacks. Extra mobility gets around terrain and such, but Pathfinder skirts nearly all the same things that flight does and it's damn near everywhere. Running a MkII list like a MkI list has brought me nothing but tears.

With the exception of Saeryn + Double Angels, I agree.

[Necra-Chi]

It appears PP wants that to remain "exceptional"

[blitzmonkey]

It appears PP wants that to remain "exceptional"

None of my opponents at my LGS were happy AT ALL that this is still in the game.

[Necra-Chi]

I'm going to ask them through feedback if this an oversight? It seems pretty locked in stone though. Its a product of a feat that says no melee attacks (and is unlikely to change) and the wording of Flight, which won't change.

[SteakAndSpirits]

While I will not actually be introducing a Model/Unit version of Spiny Growth into my games this weekend, I will record the perceived alterations of the game, and generate forum feedback.

My initial concerns are:

*Dragon's Blood/Spiny Growth --- +4 ARM to target Unit.
*Death Shroud/Spiny Growth --- Effective +4 ARM to target Unit vs. Melee in 9" range of Thagrosh

This makes ARM 21 Legionnaires, ARM 20 Warmongers. Additionally, that makes ARM: 15 Striders. And lastly, that makes ARM: 18 Swordsmen.

The first two cases will be potent for straight-forward reasons. The second two are potent for the following:

*ARM:15 Striders will ignore most non-direct hit, non-boosted AoE damage. This mitigates a primary balancing mechanic for stealth.

*ARM: 18 Swordsmen will find themself hitting the 'sweet-spot' to ignore the common range 12" POW:10 ranged attack.

Granted, these concerns are limited to Thagrosh and Epic Thagrosh builds. Further, they do not come with an insignificant resource and offensive opportunity cost built into them. But on paper, this combination appears significant and that conclusion should not be surprising - Using an Animus as a force-multiplier further multiplies when the number of models it is capable of affecting increases.

Will provide feedback after I've had some time to actually see how it would play out.

-s&s

EDIT: Removed repetitive sentence.

[hairsolo]

I definitely think that Legions role has changed since MKI. I hate the mantra "blank slate"... its up there with "lets just be friends" and "your like a brother to me". But, with the loss of immunity to free strikes on flight has changed how our army operates. We have heavy hitters that can't take a hit. We have highly mobile heavies that must stay away from other factions threat range and our models still die after they get in their one big hit.

I like the tempo argument that Necra mentioned. I also think we should be an adaptable faction. We hold our left hand up in the air and wave it around and say hey deal with this..... and then we nut punch them with our right.

We just need our left hand to be able to draw our opponents resources and attention. The right hand takes care of itself.