Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    Destroyer of Worlds RandomThoughts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    7,557

    Default When will the Lance rule be applied equally to all cavalry models with lances?

    as the title says

    "As I often say, variety is the spice of wargaming" (Cyel)

  2. #2
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,300

    Default

    The lance rule should just go away, or it needs to get majorly redesigned. There is a pretty strong correlation between which Cav are bad and which have the lance rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  3. #3

    Default

    I would just be happy if they made Dawnguard Destors not the most complicated unit in the game to play.

  4. #4
    Conqueror Rork's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    478

    Default

    I don't think it should be a matter of finding ways to nerf storm lances. The other cav units need improvement, probably by removing the lance rule and maybe a points reduction for some of them.

  5. #5
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    I am not all that sure that the other cavalry really need help. Vengers and Uhlans aren't bad by any mean, and even the poor destors are more a case of "too complex to bother" than really being weak.

  6. #6
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    I think that the bug with Close Combat and the performance of the models with a weapon with Lance are the actual problems.

    Lance ability is indeed a flaw, so if a model have the weapon with it then it must get the benefit to make up the flaw. The problem is, most of them are not have such compensation that they deserves. The end result determines the model's value, so even if the model have some flaw it is quite good if it have enough reason to bear the penalty. The complain is raised just because they didn't, not because they just have a weapon with Lance.

    Nonetheless, I don't think that Lance ability itself is too bad flaw, although it is indeed a flaw. Model with a weapon with Lance's purpose is to attack the high ARM target by charge, and whatever their main weapon has Lance or not they do nothing against them without a charge - whatever their sub weapon has RNG 2&P+S 13, RNG 1& P+S 10 or RNG 0.5&P+S 9 and . So even if Storm Lance(the cavalry unit with a spear but does not have a weapon with Lance)'s melee weapon has Lance and also get an another melee weapon with Close Combat, I don't think that their overall performance will be dropped - not even slightly. They will just get a small annoying problem, but that's all and they can do everything what they already did.

    So It will be better to find out the overall problem, rather than focus on a specific and weak penalty. I don't think that the cavalry models will be gets better even if their weapon with Lance lost Lance. They needs more better buffs rather than only a slight buff like removing Lance ability. For example, if they are guaranteed to be charge every turns without get engaged(like as able to advance long enough to avoid enemy counter charge after they charged), then will Lance ability be a liability? I don't think so.

    Also, as I said in the other thread, interaction with a weapon with Lance and a weapon with Close Combat is also a problem. It may cause the model to not able to attack anything in the charge turn(it can make the impact attack, though).


    And, Destors and Steelhead Cavalry are the problem too. They need the buff to be usable.
    Last edited by Stormpuppy_Infantry; 01-02-2017 at 01:55 PM.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  7. #7
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    I really like the lance rule, I think it's full of flavor. It should, however, be an either or proposition. Either you get reach, boosted attack rolls and the lance rule or you don't get the crash of a cavalry charge. Looking at the units the lance rule seems like a relic of early cav design and not a balancing factor. It gets worse with stormlances offending everyone by having reach and electro-leaps everywhere (IMO the most broken rule in WMH atm).

  8. #8
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    TBH, I would not be against the close combat rule to disappear and the lance to just be "reach 0 and no initial if you're not charging". That would remove a lot of clunkiness, and it's not like the additional sidearm attack would be an enormous deal.

  9. #9
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,300

    Default

    Yeah. Deleting Close Combat would go a long way towards making the units who have the lance rule much more playable.

    Because look at Stormlances compared to say Vengers.

    Charging Stormlances get the following number of attacks:

    Assault with E-leap.

    Melee attack with e-leap and Brutal charge, that they can take even if they do not charge so they always get their good pow weapon.

    Mount Attack/Impact Attacks.


    Charging Vengers get the following:

    Lance attack.

    Mount/Impact.


    A charging Stormlance gets to make a minimum of 5 damage rolls. A charging Venger gets 2, 3 if he's lucky enough to have more dudes in his mount range.

    Yet, the Vengers are the same cost as the Stormlances... No, Battle Driven doesn't come close to bridging the gap of +1 def and tons more good pow attacks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  10. #10
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    Didn't you forget that Lance on Exemplar Vengers have Blessed, and they can get +2 STR? Although they have the bad defensive stat and P+S by default. It is not so uncommon that the unit with Battle-Driven losts one trooper before trigger it.


    Anyway, Close Combat ability, and the overall performance of the cavalry models are more problem than Lance I think. And Lance ability itself is not that bad penalty provided the cavalry model's overall performance is good - after all melee focused cavalry models needs to charge, and without charge they can't make good result whatever their weapon has Lance or not.

    It is a good idea to just remove Close Combat ability. It will be better than keep the bug-like odd interaction with a weapon with Lance, and it is nothing wrong to add one more attack consider their expensive points. It can be a small compensation for their weapon with Lance too.
    Last edited by Stormpuppy_Infantry; 01-02-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  11. #11

    Default

    I think it boils down to why Storm LANCES don't have the Lance rule. It's kinda silly.
    Playing Like I've Got A Pair.
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS_MrSoles View Post
    Skornergy does not exist. Some people don't like options.
    "The Good Guys win, the Bad Guys lose. But as always, Evil prevails!"

  12. #12
    Destroyer of Worlds rabbit81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY (approx)
    Posts
    1,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick the Boo View Post
    I think it boils down to why Storm LANCES don't have the Lance rule. It's kinda silly.
    To be fair, they used to. Well, to be technical, they had a unique version of the lance rule called "fixed charge" that made it so their weapons only had reach on the charge, but were otherwise identical to their normal weapons (with brutal charge). They then switched to "reach all the time" in mk 2, and people have complained about it ever since.
    Returning to the game after a long hiatus.

  13. #13
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    There is no problem to add Lance ability to Storm Lances' weapon and add a weapon with Close Combat. But just remember that it have really nothing to do with their actual performance, and it doesn't solve the other cavalry's problem too. Aside the nerfs of Lances, the other cavalry needs a buff.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  14. #14
    Destroyer of Worlds Caladian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormpuppy_Infantry View Post
    There is no problem to add Lance ability to Storm Lances' weapon and add a weapon with Close Combat. But just remember that it have really nothing to do with their actual performance, and it doesn't solve the other cavalry's problem too. Aside the nerfs of Lances, the other cavalry needs a buff.
    Storm lances aren't the problem. They are well costed for the amount of output they do. Which means the rest needs to be raised up.
    "Whenever I hear, 'Laris runs' I get scared."

    When in doubt, apply eKru.

  15. #15
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    If Every cavalry unit gets buffed to meet StormLancer standart good luck to other to other units...

  16. #16
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    A charging Stormlance gets to make a minimum of 5 damage rolls. A charging Venger gets 2, 3 if he's lucky enough to have more dudes in his mount range.

    Yet, the Vengers are the same cost as the Stormlances... No, Battle Driven doesn't come close to bridging the gap of +1 def and tons more good pow attacks.
    Ok, lets be real for a moment here. Stormlances get an extra attack on the charge due to Assault. That is a clear difference from almost all other cavalry and a reasonable point for complaint. Of course, without support it's only really hitting heavies and thus typically only contributes a point of damage. Coincidentally that's the difference between Stormlance and Uhlan/Battle-driven Exemplar P+S.

    The other damage rolls you're touting are POW 10 electroleaps. These are most useful if they're attacking single wound infantry ... where they'll have trouble hitting the Assault shot. (If they're attacking a heavy and electroleaping into single wound infantry why aren't you grounding out the e-leaps with something that can take it?)

    So most of the time unsupported Stormlances are getting one extra damage roll over the majority of Cav and against heavies that's more or less compensating for their slightly lower P+S. Dropping Close Combat on Uhlans/Exemplars off-weapons would give an extra attack at MAT 7, which seems better than the RAT 5 Assault shot ... but I'd be willing to play test it.

    Note that once engaged Stormlances and Exemplars are very similar, P+S 13 vs P+S 9(11)WM, with the exception of their melee ranges; Uhlans seem to have gotten the short end of that particular stick.

    Regarding removing the Lance rule entirely, are folks willing to reduce the P+S on their main weapons by 2-3 and have Brutal Charge instead? That seems to be the alternative to Lance at the moment.

  17. #17
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevskii View Post
    Ok, lets be real for a moment here. Stormlances get an extra attack on the charge due to Assault. That is a clear difference from almost all other cavalry and a reasonable point for complaint. Of course, without support it's only really hitting heavies and thus typically only contributes a point of damage. Coincidentally that's the difference between Stormlance and Uhlan/Battle-driven Exemplar P+S.

    The other damage rolls you're touting are POW 10 electroleaps. These are most useful if they're attacking single wound infantry ... where they'll have trouble hitting the Assault shot. (If they're attacking a heavy and electroleaping into single wound infantry why aren't you grounding out the e-leaps with something that can take it?)

    So most of the time unsupported Stormlances are getting one extra damage roll over the majority of Cav and against heavies that's more or less compensating for their slightly lower P+S. Dropping Close Combat on Uhlans/Exemplars off-weapons would give an extra attack at MAT 7, which seems better than the RAT 5 Assault shot ... but I'd be willing to play test it.

    Note that once engaged Stormlances and Exemplars are very similar, P+S 13 vs P+S 9(11)WM, with the exception of their melee ranges; Uhlans seem to have gotten the short end of that particular stick.

    Regarding removing the Lance rule entirely, are folks willing to reduce the P+S on their main weapons by 2-3 and have Brutal Charge instead? That seems to be the alternative to Lance at the moment.
    Even if their weapon lost Lance is there any meaningful advancement? It doesn't change their charge attack's damage output, nor it gives a way to survive after the charge turn, disengage and charge again.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  18. #18
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormpuppy_Infantry View Post
    Even if their weapon lost Lance is there any meaningful advancement? It doesn't change their charge attack's damage output, nor it gives a way to survive after the charge turn, disengage and charge again.
    In my view the Lance rule is generally irrelevant for the reasons you imply. Nonetheless it is not well-liked and appears to be the motivation of the thread.

    Given that dropping the Lance rule has been suggested upthread, I thought it worthwhile to ask whether the advocates of this change would also change to the reduced P+S + Brutal Charge paradigm that "heavy" cavalry without the Lance rule tend to follow.

  19. #19
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevskii View Post
    ... Ok, lets be real for a moment here. ...
    Yes, let's be real and ignore all the easy synergies that electro-leaps have within cygnar. Let's ignore the pod single-handedly making those RAT 5 guys hit on 3+, let's not mention na 8pt light that gives +2 to electricity dmg rolls by existing near their target, let's ignore that electro-leaps bounce off friendly troops, bypass those immune to lightning and hit any DEF, behind any obstacle... Yes, let's talk about stormlances and ignore all that.

  20. #20
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    The lance rule should just go away, or it needs to get majorly redesigned.
    There is a pretty strong correlation between which Cav are bad and which have the lance rule.
    I half agree, I believe it can either:
    A. Stay and be applied on all cavalry models who actually have lances.
    B. Be removed and have the costs of these models re-evaluated.

    As is only Storm Lances somehow dodge this rule. As is only Storm Lances are considered to be a hazardous cavalary for many other armies. Leading to:

    1. Reconsider a small cost increase for Storm Lances, they are better as other cavalry of their kind.
    Being better is not a problem, but there should be a higher cost attached to being better.

    But if there is one word to name the problems with Mk 3 it would be consistancy. It's what players want but design(ers) are not doing.
    Last edited by JDAntoine; 01-03-2017 at 06:40 AM.

  21. #21
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDAntoine View Post
    As is only Storm Lances somehow dodge this rule..
    Storm lance and ferox.

    Not that I would want any change to the ferox ; they visibly don't have any side arms and it's actually a very big nerf to them given how they function.

    That being said, Stormlance and the lance rules are completely unrelated. Stormlance would not exactly change a lot by getting a straight lance, and they aren't nearly as strong as some here try to make them ought to be. They do murder infantry, but that's common for all cavalry, and they do have signifianctly better defensive stats than most cavalry, since def 13 is mile better than def 12, due to the prevalence of mat 6 vs mat 7.

  22. #22

    Default

    Ferox dont have lances they have spears which are much lighter and more weildable. Represented by the lack of lance and two less pow compared to cygnar. Even lower compared to the other lances which sit at pow 8 or 10, on the weapon. They are slightly stronger physically then a standard soldier so only have one less pow+str vs stormlances. And the times ive seen stormlances fire at rat 5 are far and few between, usually they have the solo nearby granting +2 rat and pow.

    Im not necessaraly an advocate for weakening stormlances but i feel the cav need to be brought to an equal footing so long as they cost so much. Just not sure how to go about that. As for the lance rule i can understand it slightly from a logic standpoint but in practice it just feels clunky.
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 01-04-2017 at 12:16 AM.

  23. #23
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,300

    Default

    One possibility I have been a fan of is to give all weapons which currently have the Lance rule also give them the Momentum rule(in addition to losing Close Combat)

    This would give them extra damage potential and some utility vs infantry as they could slam small and medium based models around hitting more dudes. Then they would also be Knock Down on a stick vs large based models.

    Would also give them a better chance to use their reposition rule to leave combat as they would be more likely to not be engaged.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  24. #24
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    One possibility I have been a fan of is to give all weapons which currently have the Lance rule also give them the Momentum rule(in addition to losing Close Combat)

    This would give them extra damage potential and some utility vs infantry as they could slam small and medium based models around hitting more dudes. Then they would also be Knock Down on a stick vs large based models.

    Would also give them a better chance to use their reposition rule to leave combat as they would be more likely to not be engaged.


    Brilliant. Why I didn't ever think about that?
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    One possibility I have been a fan of is to give all weapons which currently have the Lance rule also give them the Momentum rule(in addition to losing Close Combat)

    This would give them extra damage potential and some utility vs infantry as they could slam small and medium based models around hitting more dudes. Then they would also be Knock Down on a stick vs large based models.

    Would also give them a better chance to use their reposition rule to leave combat as they would be more likely to not be engaged.
    I like this idea.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

  26. #26
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    Yes, let's be real and ignore all the easy synergies that electro-leaps have within cygnar. Let's ignore the pod single-handedly making those RAT 5 guys hit on 3+, let's not mention na 8pt light that gives +2 to electricity dmg rolls by existing near their target, let's ignore that electro-leaps bounce off friendly troops, bypass those immune to lightning and hit any DEF, behind any obstacle... Yes, let's talk about stormlances and ignore all that.
    None of those interactions have anything to do with the Lance rule. Nor does it have anything to do with the point I responded to, that is that Stormlances output "5 damage rolls" on the charge.

    Instead you seem to be complaining about electro-leap. Maybe it would make more sense to talk about that in another thread?

  27. #27
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevskii View Post
    None of those interactions have anything to do with the Lance rule. Nor does it have anything to do with the point I responded to, that is that Stormlances output "5 damage rolls" on the charge.

    Instead you seem to be complaining about electro-leap. Maybe it would make more sense to talk about that in another thread?
    You cannot talk about stormlances in comparison to other units, especially other cavalary units, and disregard electro-leaps. The electro-leaps on both weapons and assault change the unit from a vannila charge/no-charge unit into a synergetic toolbox unlike any other cavalary. You replied to the 5 damage rolls post (to which the lance rule is irrelevant) and downplayed the electro-leaps, I replied to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    One possibility I have been a fan of is to give all weapons which currently have the Lance rule also give them the Momentum rule(in addition to losing Close Combat)

    This would give them extra damage potential and some utility vs infantry as they could slam small and medium based models around hitting more dudes. Then they would also be Knock Down on a stick vs large based models.

    Would also give them a better chance to use their reposition rule to leave combat as they would be more likely to not be engaged.
    Sorry to disagree but it is a horrible proposition. Mommentum is a very very powerfull rule, some casters very dangerous assassins because they can KD from a distance (Force Blast, Tornado, Scourge, Tempest), do you want to give that tool to every faction on a stick? KD is a very powerfull effect to apply on someone, beeing able to do it from 12/13 inches with reach for maximum flexibility and boosted attack rolls would be insane.

  28. #28
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    You cannot talk about stormlances in comparison to other units, especially other cavalary units, and disregard electro-leaps. The electro-leaps on both weapons and assault change the unit from a vannila charge/no-charge unit into a synergetic toolbox unlike any other cavalary. You replied to the 5 damage rolls post (to which the lance rule is irrelevant) and downplayed the electro-leaps, I replied to that.
    That depends what the discussion is about. As far as I am aware this discussion is about the Lance rule, which I think is essentially irrelevant to the relative power of Stormlances vs other cavalry. Note that, if Stormlances are charging, i.e. when the Lance rule is relevant, they are, absent either spell support or additional pieces, going to be making the Assault shot at RAT 5.

    If, in fact, you want to talk about what makes Stormlances more powerful than other cavalry I'm happy to do that. (They do seem a little undercosted at present, but at the same time my play experience suggests one gets less out of electroleaps than might be expected from a paper analysis.) However, it would seem more sensible to do so in a thread that isn't about the Lance rule.

  29. #29
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Post #9, #10, #14 touched on comparing Stormlances to other Cavalry units as part of the lance rule.

  30. #30
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    Post #9, #10, #14 touched on comparing Stormlances to other Cavalry units as part of the lance rule.
    Sure. And if you want to talk about Stormlances in comparison to other Cavalry units in reference to the Lance rule we can do so.

    The Lance rule is relevant only in a charging/not charging scenario.

    1) Cavalry units with the Lance rule lose their most powerful attack when not charging.
    2) Stormlances (and Bane/Long Riders) do not. As a consequence they tend to do a bit better than Uhlans/Destors when not charging (Exemplars are fairly comparable on their off-weapons). On the other hand they tend to be a bit worse in a charging scenario but can redirect their initial melee attack where Lance cavalry can't.
    3) Uniquely Stormlances keep reach in a non-charging scenario which allows them to tie up a greater number of models in melee.

    That is, as far as I can see, the sum total of Lance/non-Lance interactions that come up when we compare Stormlances to Lance cavalry. With the exception of 3) Stormlances don't appear to be hugely different to other non-Lance cavalry with regard to those interactions. Whether always on 2" reach is a significant benefit is, really, a matter of playstyle.

    In any case, as I, and others, have said it doesn't seem like Lance is the feature that distinguishes Stormlances from other cavalry. Do you disagree with that position? Would giving Stormlances a P+S 15 Lance and a 1" range P+S 12-13 off weapon with electroleap have any real effect on their relative power? If not, then aren't you arguing about the relative power of some other rule or combination of rules rather than Lance?
    Last edited by lobachevskii; 01-04-2017 at 04:36 AM.

  31. #31
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevskii View Post
    ... In any case, as I, and others, have said it doesn't seem like Lance is the feature that distinguishes Stormlances from other cavalry. Do you disagree with that position? ...
    I agree that it's not the Lance. I know I'm not following post #1, but this is a development/errata thing and once Stormlances get into the mix I don't feel you should narrow this down. I think having 2" reach all the time is much much better than not having it, always. Lack of the Lance rule doesn't break Stormlances, what "breaks" Stormlances is the rest of the package and I feel that should be adressed. I felt it should have been adressed in the past errata.
    Last edited by jisidro; 01-04-2017 at 04:59 AM. Reason: Re-writing to make sense? I hope.

  32. #32
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    I agree that it's not the Lance. I know I'm not following post #1, but this is a development/errata thing and once Stormlances get into the mix I don't feel you should narrow this down. I think having 2" reach all the time is much much better than not having it, always. Lack of the Lance rule doesn't break Stormlances, what "breaks" Stormlances is the rest of the package and I feel that should be adressed. I felt it should have been adressed in the past errata.
    Regarding always on 2" reach why is that? For me it would only really be relevant if I was trying to tie up infantry with Stormlances ... which seems like a bad trade in general.

    The reason why, to my mind, it makes little sense to discuss the more general question of Stormlances in this thread, is that the less focused any given thread here is, the less likely it is to get Developer response/attention. We can, of course, discuss anything we like. However, if your position is that Stormlances are undercosted/overpowered or that electroleap is too good, it seems like we'd have more chance of getting sensible input on those points in their own thread.

  33. #33

    Default

    Lance is bad because : The rule change the engaged/in-melee range between 2 attacks.

    This is a pain to explain, to remember and to play.
    The destor conundrum : without a printed flowchart even veteran make mistake with them :/

    It's easier to use : Brutal charge and a fixed reach.
    Change a few thing there and there on cav cards and we're good to go.

  34. #34
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    Sorry to disagree but it is a horrible proposition. Mommentum is a very very powerfull rule, some casters very dangerous assassins because they can KD from a distance (Force Blast, Tornado, Scourge, Tempest), do you want to give that tool to every faction on a stick? KD is a very powerfull effect to apply on someone, beeing able to do it from 12/13 inches with reach for maximum flexibility and boosted attack rolls would be insane.
    Momentum is not as powerful as you seem to be intimating. But yes, it is strong. Cavalry are 20+ point units, they NEED to have something strong to justify that point cost. Momentum would be perfect for them. It would give them some extra damage output vs small and medium bases(they could slam members of a unit into each other), and it would give them utility vs Large Bases by knocking them down.

    Remember that its only a D3" slam, so you're not getting full D6 slams.

    Momentum would be absolutely perfect for Lances. Just look up what happens to a human who gets skewered by a charging horseman with a Lance. The only way to describe it is "he got slammed".
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  35. #35
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,797

    Default

    Else give Reposition[5"], give the ability that cannot be charged by non-Cavalry unit will be an another solution - although here is not the suggestion forum.

    Anyway, the topic is aim for the Storm Lances(and poor Ferox), so it is inevitable to talk about them. Also it is also related with the model with Lance as well.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Anti armor ranged damage per point cost for Haley1
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.

  36. #36
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Momentum is not as powerful as you seem to be intimating. But yes, it is strong. Cavalry are 20+ point units, they NEED to have something strong to justify that point cost.
    A lot of full units + UA cost that. A lot don't get to the table, Stormlances and other Cavalry units do. Perhaps it's not Cavalry that needs help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Momentum would be perfect for them. It would give them some extra damage output vs small and medium bases(they could slam members of a unit into each other), and it would give them utility vs Large Bases by knocking them down.

    Remember that its only a D3" slam, so you're not getting full D6 slams.
    Well, the KD happens in place allowing for perfect planning. KD along with Stationary means you will get hit by anything and everything. It's too powerfull a condition to apply with boosted attack rolls by 4pt. models starting at least 11" (The slowest charge range afaik.) but easily 15".

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Momentum would be absolutely perfect for Lances. Just look up what happens to a human who gets skewered by a charging horseman with a Lance. The only way to describe it is "he got slammed".
    That is represented by impact attacks, boosted attack rolls and boosted damage... Fluff-wise, try to imagine what would happen to a charging horseman after hitting a target weighting a few tones... Especially if he didn't let go of his lance... I think you're hung up on the name of the rule, it has a great name but I think it would be too powerfull. I would further reduce the possibility of other units seeing table-time, especially on factions with stong cavalry units ATM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •