Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 52
  1. #1

    Default Heart-eater and "May I" Abilities

    Hi all,

    I've been playing Circle for a year and I've noticed a general trend when trying to use models outside of the conventional range of net-lists: many of them simply ask "May I, Please," instead of taking a role on the table. To an extent the heavy goats all suffer from this problem, and the units with heart-eater certainly do ask well. The trend towards Wurmwood or Una2 and the former trends of Kruegar2 and Bradigus indicate that players like the process of taking action and will favor lists and warlocks that allow them to take active roles in the battle. Grayle and Moshar especially seem to ask permission of their opponents.

    I am aware of the general thinking about "questions" versus "answers" list-building, but that binary doesn't actually reflect how games work in play. Instead, I think the game needs to be understood better in terms of active versus passive list choices. For example, a Juggernaut is an active piece - it does things - where as the Gnarlhorn asks to do things - counter-slam - but its associated stats don't allow it to be active outside of that question and so the piece is essentially passive. Their similarities in point cost seems possible in the abstract, but disparate in reality. Sentry Stones do active things, playing a role in every engagement, and so they find a space into lists. Most of Circle's mid-range beasts and our infantry (esp. Druids and Tharn) are passive.

    Heart-eater is a fine example of this problem, and I believe its nature as a passive ability explain why Tharn have little traction. The ability's effects look superior to Weapon Master, but in reality, Weapon Master is an active ability, driving play and performing tactics. The Death Wolves ask permission to use their abilities of the enemy (can you bring infantry?), and when permission is not given become a passive unit, while the Black Frost Shard with active support abilities, active protection ability (Stealth), and Weapon Master, is an example of a similar unit that takes an active role in the game.

    As a Celtic mythology fan, I'm disappointed in the way the Tharn play, mostly because their evocative abilities don't play out (and they don't have chariots). Kromac1's Cuchulain warp spasm is evocative, but it is not a defensive response anymore, and heart-eater dies on the table almost every time...

    So what would you do to enliven the Tharn? Lower Points? Turn the Lord of the Feast into added support solo augmenting heart-taker? A cool theme list to empower the ability?

  2. #2
    Destroyer of Worlds Po the Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8,292

    Default

    I think your active vs passive thoughts certainly are a reasonable lense for the different models.

    For than, at their point level and fragility, I'd just give them weaponmaster. They never get there anyway, but giving them bane level hitting power would at least give them a hypothetical role. They'd still see as much table time as banes do now though likely. Would probably help wurmwood too much though as the one caster who can deliver them, but it's not like he takes the expensive psudoweaponmasters he has access too (unless LEJ is making the list) anyway.

  3. #3

    Default

    You have a good point in that conditional abilities are often worse than universal abilities, but these same abilities are supposed to flexible as well. These units I don't think were designed to be core to circle armies but rather more specialized answers. "Core" units in circle would be like skinwalkers or sentry/shifting stones, that is, units that can work decently well in any list against a wide variety of opponents.

    Now I am a tharn lover myself. I even bought two blood packs to run with the old eKaya theme list in M2. Since heart eater and your post revolve around these models, I'm going to shift the discussion to them.

    Believe it or not, the tharn units (a slight exception to the blood pack), DW's, and LOTF are actually well balanced and in a good place. They are not bad units, and actually have decent stats and ablities. Their problem is they are designed to fight largely single wound, large unit infantry, which in the current meta is mostly not seen. The current meta revolves around lots of warnouns, gunlines, or high ARM multi wound infantry. Maybe this meta will shift in the future, but most of the games I've seen are this way. Tharn ravagers are actually a decent unit, and can slaughter an entire unit of infantry with just a few models with some decent rolls/good support. They just appear bad since most other factions don't bring their intended targets.

    Now, the heart eater units in circle are actually pretty mediocre against the above types of lists since they are med-DEF and low ARM and pillow-fisted (i.e. the perfect targets for gunlines and ARM skew). On top of this, there are many alternatives in most circle lists to play against infantry, such as Stalkers or reeves, and these alternatives perform a bit better against lists in the meta at the moment. Essentially they are here as a sort of counter balance to a meta that may come one day.

    I believe this is the main way to analyze the heart eater units. That said, they do have some obvious weaknesses. For one, the male tharn have tree walker. On paper this is a very good ability since it makes them Def 15. In practice, it is usually useless since forest terrain is either scarce or irrelevant based on placement on the board in many metas. Some of the points of the tharn are tied up in tree walker. I made a post a while ago suggesting more stringent terrain rules such as pre-made terrain that guarantees a forest on some scenarios in order to make the tree walker ability more reliable.

    As for LOTF and Blood Pack, these guys could use some direct buffs. For LOTF, I would either reduce his points by 1-2 or give him his 2 inch reach back. At the moment he's too costly for just being an annoying pest that might get 3 enemy models if you're lucky. For the blood pack, I would give them their assault and battery back. With just assault, they are more like ravagers with a bow attack that need to enter the frey. With A+B, they had a lot of cool hit and run flexibility, as well as the potential to kill 12 models per turn.

    Overall the models are fine imo. It's just going to take a meta shift to see these guys shine. Sweeping buffs to them would be a mistake and would make them too powerful. Even now these models can work in very tailored lists. But I believe in the future we will see more of them. Not to mention the almost-certain tharn theme list that will probably give them some nifty buffs.

  4. #4
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    I'm really hoping to see some theme list for them in the Circle book, but I think there's a good chance that we see Wolves or Druids instead. I think Tharn (Ravagers and Bloodpack) have a lot of potential... they just need a good warcaster for them (you'd *think* that'd be Kromac, but he doesn't really do much for them). Honestly, if Tanith didn't have Affliction, I think you'd be seeing Bloodpack with her, because a unit of effectively POW 15 bows is pretty decent. Mohsar isn't a bad choice for the same reason. I dunno... I think they really need an armor drop (or strength buff) and a DEF buff, and so far no one's had that package.
    It's not a question of win or lose, it's a question of whether or not you want to have friends afterwards.

  5. #5
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Courtenay, BC, Vancouver Island
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    The combination of Heart Eater, Tree Walker and Vengeance is a triple whammy of "may I" abilities. Ravagers used to be situationally amazing. They're a little less situational now with corpse tokens coming from Undead models and Vengeance being one of the best abilities in the game, but they're also less amazing with just about all of their rules getting nerfed in exchange for Tough, which unfortunately is also nerfed in MkIII.

    The only upside I really see is that I see a lot fewer Grievous Wounds models than I expected to when MkIII was released.
    The best way to get an "infernal response" to your rules forum question is to acknowledge the answers you've gotten. Once the infernals see that you have your answer, they will lock the thread. This is an acknowledgement that the rule question is answered correctly.
    Winterguard: For Sergei!

  6. #6

    Default

    I am really hoping it is a tharn theme.. which also allows the sentry stones.. lol

    B.

  7. #7

    Default

    Their problem is that they are to fargile and dont hit hard enough to be our heavy hitting unit.

    Changes i would do

    lose:
    Tree walker
    hearteater

    Ua lose:
    vengance
    Tree walker
    Lose hearteater
    3 boxes

    Unit gains:
    Weapon master
    Berserk
    Vengance
    +1 def
    +1 arm

    Ua gains:
    granted: Overtake
    Mini feat: sprint
    +1 def
    +1 arm

  8. #8
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Making them doomreaver is a bit sad. Heart eater is particulary thematic, but way, way too hard to use as something else than pseudo-berserk, since you need to kill stuff, survive a turn, and then go on.

    My personal preference would be for tharn :
    * to have a way to start with some corpse token, or at least have some seriously cheap way to get token before the melee
    * to have two attack, like with dual strike, so that you can use the token to boost in more cases.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohlmann View Post
    Making them doomreaver is a bit sad. Heart eater is particulary thematic, but way, way too hard to use as something else than pseudo-berserk, since you need to kill stuff, survive a turn, and then go on.

    My personal preference would be for tharn :
    * to have a way to start with some corpse token, or at least have some seriously cheap way to get token before the melee
    * to have two attack, like with dual strike, so that you can use the token to boost in more cases.
    I agree that Heart eater is thematic and cool... but it dos not work properly in the game as you yourself say. You have to kill and then survive, kinda hard for the 13 15 dudes.

    Berserk on the other hand does work, has a down side, and is thematic to a degree. We are talking about blood soaked shapeshifting barbarians here. they are not that far off the doom reaver arch type....
    Rapid strike would be another option, but then WM is just to good and they should get their old brutal charge back.

  10. #10
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    AD, Powerfull charge and Brutal Charge are the abilities ou offensive unit lost... Want them back!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    AD, Powerfull charge and Brutal Charge are the abilities ou offensive unit lost... Want them back!
    Fair enough i forgot about AD.

    Powerful charge is a bit redundant i think... Would rather have +1 mat then.
    Hearth eater was always a crap rule unless you start with tokens. I would be ok with them bringing it back if they started with 1 token each. maybe Ua mini feat could be: Each model gains a heart token.
    Weapon master is a given i think. For all male tharn except shaman, and kromac

  12. #12

    Default

    I think you are missing one side of these abilities your refer to as 'may I'. Which is the choices caused on the other side of the table.

    Vengeance is a good example of this. Your point of view (as I understand it) is that your opponent can deny you the use of vengeance by not attacking your unit and making the ability redundant. However that in itself is a choice your opponent as to make. Do they really want to kill only one or two models in this unit and give you an extra 3" threat and an extra attack on the all of the others. This was a common issue against units like banes and retribution sentinels. If im going to attack that unit I have to kill them all or risk severe retaliation.

    The same can be said of abilities like counter-charge/slam. Your positioning is critical to get the most out of the effect. You can use them to force your opponent to play into situations you want them to. Do you really want to charge this thing or move over here because I can charge you and might break an aspect or slam you somewhere. Yes they can avoid it but then you have restricted their choices and if you are really clever can make the other choices equally bad.

    I agree with your opinion on the Gnarlhorn though. Counterslam in theory sounds great but in practice is far too easy to mitigate due to the directly towards component of a slam. As you say , when he does get there, he doesnt do much.

    One of the reasons that the karchev lists are so powerfull is that he gives his entire battlegroup countercharge. This makes landing a model pretty much anywhere a complete headache for the opponent. Thats before you take into account the armour, boxes, number of jacks and the brutal feat turn.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    Vengeance is a good example of this. Your point of view (as I understand it) is that your opponent can deny you the use of vengeance by not attacking your unit and making the ability redundant. However that in itself is a choice your opponent as to make. Do they really want to kill only one or two models in this unit and give you an extra 3" threat and an extra attack on the all of the others. This was a common issue against units like banes and retribution sentinels. If im going to attack that unit I have to kill them all or risk severe retaliation.
    Problem with the Ravagers is that they have Granted Vengance. so your opponet just have to take out the UA and then there will not be any vengance.... same problem as sentinels had in mk2

  14. #14

    Default

    Problem with the Ravagers is that they have Granted Vengance. so your opponet just have to take out the UA and then there will not be any vengance.... same problem as sentinels had in mk2
    Its fairly easy to keep him back and safe though. In all the times ive played him I can only think of one occasion where he got sniped out before the rest of the unit.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

  15. #15
    Destroyer of Worlds Bakemono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subversive View Post
    The combination of Heart Eater, Tree Walker and Vengeance is a triple whammy of "may I" abilities. Ravagers used to be situationally amazing. They're a little less situational now with corpse tokens coming from Undead models and Vengeance being one of the best abilities in the game, but they're also less amazing with just about all of their rules getting nerfed in exchange for Tough, which unfortunately is also nerfed in MkIII.

    The only upside I really see is that I see a lot fewer Grievous Wounds models than I expected to when MkIII was released.
    Well that and the fact that MKIII has made all terrain benefits based on being FULLY WITHIN (idiotic) because a fully unit of Tharn can't fit in any forest I ever see on any table, let almost move around the table without being shot off it. It isn't unlike all the Prowl models we have hoping desperately that there will be a way for a model or two to get into some trees.

  16. #16
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadEisenhorn View Post
    Powerful charge is a bit redundant i think...
    I don't it is and I have plenty os reasons besides MAT 9 is better than MAT 7.

    - Internal faction logic: Ravagers (Including Shaman as a WA), White mane and Ghetorix had powerfull charge. So, all male Tharn with 2 handed weapons had it. It was a thing. Now, they all lost it.
    - In circle base MAT 7 is good but modified it's not. WoO charge with Mat 8 and have CMA, Trackers charge with MAT 8 on their preys, Cav has boosted attack rolls...
    - The powerfull and brutal charge abilities gave them a super-charge attack which in turn gave value to the weak-conditional-sauce that has been Heart-Eater. Now they charge with Mat 7 and PoW 13, it's 2 rolls that can't be bad to get another MAT 7 attack...
    - POW 15 threatens heavies, it's the similar to POW 12WM. POW 13 is just bad when you start going at heavies. They need to do that.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    I don't it is and I have plenty os reasons besides MAT 9 is better than MAT 7.

    - Internal faction logic: Ravagers (Including Shaman as a WA), White mane and Ghetorix had powerfull charge. So, all male Tharn with 2 handed weapons had it. It was a thing. Now, they all lost it.
    - In circle base MAT 7 is good but modified it's not. WoO charge with Mat 8 and have CMA, Trackers charge with MAT 8 on their preys, Cav has boosted attack rolls...
    - The powerfull and brutal charge abilities gave them a super-charge attack which in turn gave value to the weak-conditional-sauce that has been Heart-Eater. Now they charge with Mat 7 and PoW 13, it's 2 rolls that can't be bad to get another MAT 7 attack...
    - POW 15 threatens heavies, it's the similar to POW 12WM. POW 13 is just bad when you start going at heavies. They need to do that.
    I agree. But i dont want those abilitys back, that was mk2 and they did away with them on all tharn...

    So why not mat 8 pow 13 WM instead

    either with heart eater although its a crapy rule, or berserk...

  18. #18
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadEisenhorn View Post
    ... So why not mat 8 pow 13 WM instead either with heart eater although its a crapy rule, or berserk...
    Do you think there is a chance that Ravagers will end up liek that? We have Heart-eater as a Tharn mecaniq and I don't think that will change. We are a non-infantry faction with 2 infantry themes... How crazy is that? No wonder, both are dead themes.

  19. #19
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,086

    Default

    Here's the thing with ravagers and bloodpack. It's clear PP sees these units as all-offense. They are supposed to be hitty and a tad durable, but fall down to concentrated force or dedicated gunlines (unless you can use terrain).

    Ravagers at 13/15 5 wounds Tough look OK on paper. But medium bases mean they are highly visible and cannot capitalize as easily on terrain. Certainly reasonably soft. But on offense they are utterly lacking. What they do is mulch troops. Meta-dependent, but even if this were a troop meta, Circle hardly wants or needs these guys trying to make melee. They have better, less vulnerable options for the same or less. I agree that they should probably go back to the MKII style rules. Whatever PPs goal here, they utterly missed it. There's a lack of space for them in faction design.

    Bloodpack similarly feel like PP doesn't know how to get table top rules to reflect a vision.I'd rather take 1-2 woldstalkers than min/max bloodpack, because woldstalkers are more or less as effective at range, melee doesn't matter, and cost half as much. 13/14 5 wounds tough is a joke. Assault on range 10 bows is a death trap. Heart Eater is a dead rule on this unit.

    I've played both these units and its disheartening. It's incredibly frustrating even trying to get 1-2 ravagers across the table, let alone do anything meaningful once they get there.

    Meanwhile, female tharn, with 14/11 Stealth, are much more durable, and far more capable at their jobs. Ironically, they also hit far harder, last longer, etc. It's almost like PP got the roles wrong.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    Do you think there is a chance that Ravagers will end up liek that? We have Heart-eater as a Tharn mecaniq and I don't think that will change. We are a non-infantry faction with 2 infantry themes... How crazy is that? No wonder, both are dead themes.
    Heart eater is a dead mechaninc, and if you want the male tharn to be all offense it seams like the logical way of doing it. Scrap heart eater as its confusing and bad, replace it with berserk or let them bring some hearts to the battle or have the ua/shaman give them out as a ability or mini feat.

    All offense medium bases with huge axes screams high pow or WM. pow 13 is neither. either bump it up to say 15 or give them WM or flank with each othere or something....

    Flank and berserk could be very intresting.....

    Another rule that could replace hearth eater is back swing...

  21. #21
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    @Paradox: What they don't do is mulch troops. That is their problem, if they did they could be out of a job because of Meta but they'd be good at something. They are not.

    If they charge a 12/18 unit (Shield Guard guys) they have a 79% of a kill then get a corpse token and use it for a 59% of a kill or 47% of killing 2 guys in a shield Wall formation.
    If they charge Trenchers (13/13 with Tough) it's 23% of both kills because of tough.

    Exactly who are they mulching?

  22. #22
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox View Post
    But on offense they are utterly lacking. What they do is mulch troops.
    Lord of the feast mulch troops. Sentry stone mulch troops. Tharn nigh witch (the solo) mulch troops. Tharn wolf rider mulch troop. Reevers mulch troops. Tharn bloodtrackers are pretty good against troops. Warpwolf stalker are berserk, and consequently are pretty sweet against troops. The Storm Raptor have a lot of anti-troop tech. I might actually forget a bit of Circle anti-infantry.

    I suspect a good part of the problem is indeed here : at some point, the circle don't need to have more thna half of their references good at killing troops. Consequently, the berserk idea might just not work ; they really want to do more damage on hard target, not being anti-infantry missile #388.

    I guess they could be WM, finisher, or maybe both.

  23. #23
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    @Paradox: What they don't do is mulch troops. That is their problem, if they did they could be out of a job because of Meta but they'd be good at something. They are not.

    If they charge a 12/18 unit (Shield Guard guys) they have a 79% of a kill then get a corpse token and use it for a 59% of a kill or 47% of killing 2 guys in a shield Wall formation.
    If they charge Trenchers (13/13 with Tough) it's 23% of both kills because of tough.

    Exactly who are they mulching?
    Shieldwalls are breakable in that the charge can remove the bonus, depending on placement, from the followup. Tough is tough. Its dice. Plus warlock bonuses can help when they hit. On the occasion I get 1-2 into the lines, tgey can sweep up troops (flame bringers, daughters, banes, etc). It's getting there thats the issue. The 2nd issue is when there are few or no troops, or none to go after based on deployment et They just kinda do nothing.
    Whereas if I take bloodtrackers (which I normally do) I have none of these issues and they work vs anything in the field, for more or less same cost. So bloodtrackers get played, ravagers get bagged. Unless Im trying to make them work again. Then Im just hating the game.

  24. #24
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    194

    Default

    I hate to say it, but Ravagers do seem pretty underwhelming right now. I'm not going to say that they are unplayable or anything, but they are hard to optimize. I think a good point was made about other models pretty much always being useful, where others are only situationally useful. I think the Ravagers (and pack) fall into the latter category. That being said, it is perfectly fine and healthy to have models that fit into a smaller niche than others. That's how you see other models hit the table. The issue here is that Ravagers are simply not as good at doing the things we are trying to make them do as other models in our faction. There isn't much debate about that.

    So my question is, are we using the Ravagers incorrectly? There is little doubt that we have better (by that I mean more efficient and reliable) light infantry removal. Are Ravagers our best bet to remove medium infantry, or cavalry? Are they best used to deal with solos and lights? Are they made to flank and get at support pieces? Are they made to gum up lines and contest?

    If I had to pick something that they are good at in MK3, it would be dealing with infantry from light-medium. Maybe some lights. I don't think they are fast and safe enough to get to the back lines often. I also don't think they can crack armor well anymore. Tough makes them sort of almost be able to gum up lines, but hardly as a main function of the unit. I'm sure there is a purpose for them that they would excel at(that a cheaper model wouldn't be able to do better, while still being able to do other things), I just can't seem to figure out what it is.

  25. #25

    Default

    So my question is, are we using the Ravagers incorrectly?
    This is the best question so far. If it helps I can explain how I use them in my wurmwood list. They get used as a hard hitting alpha strike which can either clear infantry or drop some damage into a heavy to allow one of my heavies to finish it off. They then become body blockers to stop the opponent being able to get anything into the scenario to contest.

    Most of the games have run as follows.

    Turn 1 everything runs. Turn 2 I feat and postion everything safely in the forest as far forward as possible to commit to an alpha next turn. I may 'misposition' one Ravager to temp my opponent into triggering vengeance. Usually the opponent wont be able to get anything into contest that turn so i can score either on my turn 2 or theirs. Turn 3 2-4 ravagers go in smashing some stuff or killing infantry the rest hang back and body block the scenario and I generally score again. Now ive set the line of battle so far up the table that it can be very difficult if impossible for the opponent to contest the scenario and I can score again. Then its rinse and repeat until I get a scenario win. The rest of the army is either jamming or taking out key stuff all intended to stop the opponent from preventing me scoring.

    The reason I like the Ravagers for this job over other models is as follows.

    Skinwalkers: I agree the are harder to kill but are too slow to keep up with the army and set the line of battle far enough forward to control the scenario.
    Trackers: small bases can be trampled through so it can be trivial to get something through or around them to contest.

    While I agree they are not as good at jamming as skinwalkers, ARM 15 with 5 boxes and tough and 'no knockdown' from the shaman can still be a headache for the opponent to remove. Enough to buy me the time I need to get a scenario win.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

  26. #26
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Well, I've been playing against lists with gun and/or Cav so it goes more like this...

    If I start I can run forward 12" (19" line) meaning they can advance up to their 19" line safely and then it's about threat ranges. Sometimes I may have to stay back because of their guns. Terrain helps with this ofc.
    If they start I NEED terrain or they'll get charged/shot. 11" is a good threat range but it's nothing to write home about. Most lists with melee have SPD buffs that bring their stuff past the 11" or they have guns and they are in big trouble.

    We have good ways to deliver them but then so do the other guys. Our infantry support isn't that great. Baldur1 and Wurmwood support anything so it becomes na issue of what works best, Ravager boat or Ghetorix/Megalith/Stalker...

  27. #27

    Default

    They key with wurmwood is the feat though. The feat makes their threat range largely irrelivant. You can put your stuff as far forward in the forest as possible while being safe from retaliation. Thats usually about another 5" in front of wurmwood. This leaves the opponent the choice of either backing up or running into the forest to jam. If they back up then its playing into my scenario plan. If they try to jam then CoS comes into play and the ravagers run through the jamming unit to kill stuff behind and then the rest of the army (Stalker and secondary unit, WoO in my list) mops up the jamming unit. The end result is the same. I have set the line of battle a long way up the table.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

  28. #28

    Default

    So far I'm feeling blood pack is pretty alright, they have a fairly long threat range with assault even if they don't make use of heart eater from that. Maybe if they were able to spend hearts on range. or buy an extra shot with a heart.
    Ravagers seem spot on especially with either the shaman and/or chieftain. The shaman has helped me in attrition, Bonus to Tanith who hands out affliction with shamans battle wizard lightning combo. LOtF just seems like they need to figure out what they want him to able able to do with order of activation with his abilities and he can be worth his 6 points.

  29. #29
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malix View Post
    LOtF just seems like they need to figure out what they want him to able able to do with order of activation with his abilities and he can be worth his 6 points.
    I think LoTF is very close to being playable in some lists. The big problem with him is the loss of his reach. I think his other attacks are pretty decent still. They changed the way he threshers a little, so you can't port in and kill everything. But you can now shoot your bird while engaged. That's pretty big.

  30. #30
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arf View Post
    I think LoTF is very close to being playable in some lists. The big problem with him is the loss of his reach. I think his other attacks are pretty decent still. They changed the way he threshers a little, so you can't port in and kill everything. But you can now shoot your bird while engaged. That's pretty big.
    A little.... Let's be fair here LoTF saw next to no high end competitive play in mk2. This version is much much worse and that's not counting how much worse the meta is for him.

    Before you were risking an insanely expensive solo on a shot but as long as you hit you could get to some annoying places and had a pretty good chance to get your points back. This version you have all that same risk, half the area to effect, need every attack to go perfectly, there are fewer troops on the board so less opportunity to find them clumped, no more terror/CMD check, more ways to ignore stealth, more tough in the game.

    So, I will agree you are less likely to be able to kill all the troops you can get in his new and improved (smaller to make it easier) reach so it's a big deal that he can shoot out of there.

  31. #31
    Destroyer of Worlds Bakemono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arf View Post
    I think LoTF is very close to being playable in some lists. The big problem with him is the loss of his reach. I think his other attacks are pretty decent still. They changed the way he threshers a little, so you can't port in and kill everything. But you can now shoot your bird while engaged. That's pretty big.
    I'm curious. Do you mean "close" in terms of the theory of relativity? In that regard, Jupiter is downright close to us compared to Pluto. Models are pass or fail. They are either competitive or they are not. They are either worth their points or they are not. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Returning to relativity, I'd say the LOTF is a hell of a lot closer to the shelf than he is to the table. Oh, let's be honest; he is sitting on the shelf right now collecting dust.

  32. #32
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    #1 - Very happy my pet name is catching on! Now to promote the Shelf Wolves!
    #2 - LotF is very very far away from the table. A 5pt melee solo needs to be something like Nicea, check her out.
    #3 - 7pts are the cost of a lot of Light warbeasts/warjacks. It's a 20+ HP box with decent defensive stats and the ability to boost. For a solo to match this it needs to be REALLY special. Eyriss is barely hanging on, again, Eyriss is barely hanging on. She ends games with a RAT 9 ranged attack.

  33. #33
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    They key with wurmwood is the feat though. The feat makes their threat range largely irrelivant. You can put your stuff as far forward in the forest as possible while being safe from retaliation. Thats usually about another 5" in front of wurmwood.
    Let's clarify this statement, because it feels a bit misleading. Wurmwood's feat is CMD again, so 10" radius. Enemy models can see 3" into forests. So the ravagers have to form a semi-circle along Wurmwood's feat radius, with the front edges of their bases just under 5" from the front edge of its base. Or, the back edges just less then 3.5" from its front edge. When you say the ravagers are "another 5" in front, it's easily misread.
    This, of course, assumes the opponent cannot see into the forest anyway. Eg, casters with Awareness, like Sevy2, will just shred the ravager line anyway. Or a caster like Amon, with Mobility. A SPD7 PF reach jack can walk 9" into the forest and melee you. So threat ranges do matter. Or a unit that can toe just into the forest to gain 3" LoS to ravagers, hanging just over 3" back. Or models that are fast and have leap. See ferox, shadowhorns, etc.
    There are lots of ways that skirting the edge of LoS in the feat makes life dangerous for the ravagers. Yes, they will have Treewalker, I would not count on that saving them.

    This leaves the opponent the choice of either backing up or running into the forest to jam. If they back up then its playing into my scenario plan. If they try to jam then CoS comes into play and the ravagers run through the jamming unit to kill stuff behind and then the rest of the army (Stalker and secondary unit, WoO in my list) mops up the jamming unit. The end result is the same. I have set the line of battle a long way up the table.
    So have I, and many opponents can still overcome this plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    Most of the games have run as follows.

    Turn 2 I feat and postion everything safely in the forest as far forward as possible to commit to an alpha next turn.
    I guess this depends on where you have the ravagers and Tree turn 2.
    Usually the opponent wont be able to get anything into contest that turn so i can score either on my turn 2 or theirs.
    It which scenarios? I can think of several offhand where this just isn't going to work out mathematically.

    Turn 3 2-4 ravagers go in smashing some stuff or killing infantry the rest hang back and body block the scenario and I generally score again. Now ive set the line of battle so far up the table that it can be very difficult if impossible for the opponent to contest the scenario and I can score again. Then its rinse and repeat until I get a scenario win. The rest of the army is either jamming or taking out key stuff all intended to stop the opponent from preventing me scoring.
    Again, which scenarios? Like scenarios where opponents can score their own zone. You can score yours too, but there are things like fast cav, flanking moves, acrobatic models, Ambush, etc that will mean you just can block your zone off from contesting, and you are in no way blocking them out of their own zone. Even assuming 2-4 ravagers commit (leaving only 3-5, assuming chieftain, to "body block"), those 2-4 are really easy to kill, and harder targets can easily shrug off a PS13 free strike to get at better targets. Leaving you with 3-5 ravagers at best, assuming something has not also killed them post feat.

    The reason I like the Ravagers for this job over other models is as follows.

    Skinwalkers: I agree the are harder to kill but are too slow to keep up with the army and set the line of battle far enough forward to control the scenario.
    Skinwalkers are 1 less speed. Given your turn 2 feat, they can be 27" up the table, compared to ravagers 31". Assuming that matters, it puts Wurmwood just over 26" on the table turn 2, if you went 1st.
    If you went 2nd and hauled *** with the ravagers and did not feat, they're all dead.
    I don't buy this argument, not in the least because I have actually played both units in similar roles.

    Trackers: small bases can be trampled through so it can be trivial to get something through or around them to contest.
    Assuming they are used similar to ravagers, this is a non-issue, especially because they are mainly gunning down pieces, or protected by forests, making tramples impractical . They are also more bodies with higher DEF and harder to clear out for that reason.

    ARM 15 with 5 boxes and tough and 'no knockdown' from the shaman can still be a headache for the opponent to remove. Enough to buy me the time I need to get a scenario win.
    The shaman has to * Action, making it very hard for him to keep up. Usually, especially as you lay out your plan, he just cannot. He has to be out front if he wants to Battle Wizard and get range to committed pieces. Meaning he's probably dead on the way in, or gets killed 1st so other models don't get his buff. Plus, he's 5 more pts in the package, meaning you've spent 26pts on ravagers compared to 20pts on full boat trackers (or even just 16 because Nuala is not essential), or 19pts on skinwalkers. 7-10pts more is a hell of alot, considering all the work going into the very uncertain delivery of what amounts to a few PS13 charges here.

    I think your analysis is painting with too broad a brush, and covering over many imperfections in your plan. The same imperfections that cause me major issues when I have used them in the same or similar fashion. If nothing else, we definitely have very different opponents, because these approaches have not panned out for me, for the reasons noted above.

  34. #34
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Courtenay, BC, Vancouver Island
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jisidro View Post
    She ends games with a RAT 9 ranged attack.
    This is really an important bit. When you're paying points for something, you are looking for one of two things: moving the game closer to ending in your favor, or moving it farther from ending in your opponent's favor. Eyriss ends games. Full stop. If a model is going to cost 6 points and doesn't keep your opponent from winning, it needs to win you the game or move you significantly ahead. The LotF doesn't win games and doesn't significantly slow your opponent from winning.
    The best way to get an "infernal response" to your rules forum question is to acknowledge the answers you've gotten. Once the infernals see that you have your answer, they will lock the thread. This is an acknowledgement that the rule question is answered correctly.
    Winterguard: For Sergei!

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subversive View Post
    This is really an important bit. When you're paying points for something, you are looking for one of two things: moving the game closer to ending in your favor, or moving it farther from ending in your opponent's favor. Eyriss ends games. Full stop. If a model is going to cost 6 points and doesn't keep your opponent from winning, it needs to win you the game or move you significantly ahead. The LotF doesn't win games and doesn't significantly slow your opponent from winning.
    Yes. Alten Ashley is worth six-points and Eryiss is worth six points because they both decisively contribute. They will force players to address them every turn in spacing and senario. The LotF asks you to let him use heart-eater. I still think he'd be great if he actually augmented the ability that he's supposed to be the mythic representation of. The Death Wolves are another level of problem - weapon-master or Stealth?

  36. #36
    Destroyer of Worlds Bakemono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Personally I would love to see the LOTF be immune to non-magical weapons.

  37. #37
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Incorporeal while he has a heart token....

    That could very interesting!.!.

  38. #38

    Default

    This, of course, assumes the opponent cannot see into the forest anyway
    If you are worried about this then you probably dropped the wrong list to start with. Any list that ignores his feat immediately skews the game.

    I agree with all of your points, there are many ways to get around stuff, just like there are many ways to get around pretty much everything in this game. That is the nature of the game. It comes down to positioning, knowledge and player skill.

    The change to the feat makes it a little harder to get 100% coverage but it is still possible. You are also forgetting that wurmwood has answers to a lot of things. For example the speed 7 reach jack that can walk into the forest? I stranglehold it so its not a threat. There is a reason that wurmwood is currently considered the best caster in circle and one of the top casters in the game, even after the nerf.

    There are too many possible combinations in any conceivable game to cover every possibility in a single discussion. Saying you cant play X because Y counters it is pointless unless Y is prevalent in almost every match up. The reason wurmwood wasnt played much in Mk2 was that eyeless sight ignored forests and legion was common at pretty much every tournament instantly cutting one of your lists from selection. That would be a legitimate concern.

    Either way it's clear we have had very different experiences but in my opinion the ravagers have a good place in the right lists.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

  39. #39
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    ... There is a reason that wurmwood is currently considered the best caster in circle and one of the top casters in the game, even after the nerf. ...
    This remains to be seen.

  40. #40

    Default

    This remains to be seen.
    Una 2 may well claim that spot now. But that also remains to be seen.
    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. - Sun Tzu

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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