Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 52 of 52
  1. #41
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    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.
    Youve side-stepped the entire point with this post.

  2. #42

    Default

    Youve side-stepped the entire point with this post.
    No I havent. I agreed that there are counters to everything. Nitpicking that there are one or two individual counters. Im saying you need to look at the bigger picture as a whole.

    I could go through every point you raised and argue a counter to your counter. At which point you argue a counter to my counter-counter. Then we just go around in circles.
    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

  3. #43
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    No I havent. I agreed that there are counters to everything. Nitpicking that there are one or two individual counters. Im saying you need to look at the bigger picture as a whole.

    I could go through every point you raised and argue a counter to your counter. At which point you argue a counter to my counter-counter. Then we just go around in circles.
    Hardly. It's not nitpicking, it's defending your propositions with specific, concrete answer. It's called debate. I hear what you're saying, but I feel there are gaps, over-exagerations, or flaws in your statements that require explaination or exploration. Specifically regarding scenarios at issue and relative board positions to piece performance. Your reaction was to wholly focus on Wurmwood and not ravagers and the shaman.
    I have tried much of what you suggest. I e also tried the competeing pieces you consider and discard in favor of ravagers. Im trying to determine how youre getting the performance you claim as standard when my similar efforts with similar lists yeild the opposite result.

  4. #44
    Destroyer of Worlds Bakemono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    I have to agree that Warlocks are irrelevant to the discussion about Ravagers. The questions is whether or not they, themselves, can do the heavy lifting. They can't.

  5. #45

    Default

    I have to agree that Warlocks are irrelevant to the discussion about Ravagers. The questions is whether or not they, themselves, can do the heavy lifting. They can't.
    I diasgree. You have too consider models in combination with other things. A MkII example of this is that Wold Watchers were consider rubbish (or at the very least niche) until Bobliness ran 3 of them with Baldur 2. There are plenty of other examples where specific casters or combinations make a model/unit shine usally by overcoming a specific weakness or leveraging a particular ability. Bradigus as well. How many Woldwatchers did you ever see that werent with Bradigus or Baldur?

    Mk3. Scarsfell griffons. Would you really be reaching for a scarsfell over something else if its not with Una 2 or Tanith?
    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

  6. #46
    Destroyer of Worlds Bakemono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    I diasgree. You have too consider models in combination with other things. A MkII example of this is that Wold Watchers were consider rubbish (or at the very least niche) until Bobliness ran 3 of them with Baldur 2. There are plenty of other examples where specific casters or combinations make a model/unit shine usally by overcoming a specific weakness or leveraging a particular ability. Bradigus as well. How many Woldwatchers did you ever see that werent with Bradigus or Baldur?

    Mk3. Scarsfell griffons. Would you really be reaching for a scarsfell over something else if its not with Una 2 or Tanith?
    Then we agree to disagree. The problem with trying to link Ravagers to Wurmwood to make a case for them is that it holds no water. 1) If a model is conditional on another model, it already has a tax. 2) If Wurmwood makes them better, Wurmwood would only make other models even better, i.e. why not take models better than Ravagers with Wurmwood to start with? 3) The proof is in the pudding. I see Wurmwood playing all the time. I don't see Ravagers making his lists.

    I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. Models are pass/fail. They either stand on their own merits or they don't. It goes without saying that there are niche builds for any model where they might see service, but that doesn't bear on value of said models. Ravagers don't make the grade.

  7. #47
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    I diasgree. You have too consider models in combination with other things. A MkII example of this is that Wold Watchers were consider rubbish (or at the very least niche) until Bobliness ran 3 of them with Baldur 2. There are plenty of other examples where specific casters or combinations make a model/unit shine usally by overcoming a specific weakness or leveraging a particular ability. Bradigus as well. How many Woldwatchers did you ever see that werent with Bradigus or Baldur?

    Mk3. Scarsfell griffons. Would you really be reaching for a scarsfell over something else if its not with Una 2 or Tanith?
    Warlocks are certainly relevant, but not to the exclusion of the actual models in discussion themselves.

  8. #48

    Default

    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.
    - If they ignore forests it’s the wrong drop.
    - Ferox, I haven’t actually seen skorne on a table in Mk3 but maybe that’s just here. That might change with the errata then I might consider this a problem.
    - If you go first your Ravager line is 19” up the table and threats to 30” so your opponent will naturally move up to slightly out of threat range so they don’t just get charged on turn 2. This means their position is going to be around 18” from their edge and not in a zone that matters (by that I mean not in the zone im scoring on). Any further than that and I can CoS, charge, hellmouth, port and sprint and they are just giving me free stuff to kill.
    - Turn 2. You assess the table. Most opponents will spread stuff out across the table to flank or threaten most of the board. Anything on a flank you can usually ignore because its unlikely to be able to walk far enough from the sides to threaten anything. The main concern is things directly infront of wormwood. Any heavies that walk particularly far (such as speed 7 ones with reach!) get a boosted stranglehold. So the best they can do is walk forwards. You have also created a blocker that your opponent probably needs to get out of the way before they can even think about getting something else forward and that something else is probably even further back.
    Wurmwood wants to be in a zone and ideally the edge of the forest starts about 3-4”in front of the opponents army so even a 6” speed model is only walking 2” in. If there is no pathfinder you can be more aggressive with it. Working out the threat ranges of anything that hasn’t been strangleheld is important at this point. Now you move everything up in a blob in front of the tree. The front ravager can either be just inside the 3” (so front edge ~7” in front of wurmwood or further back if you still have things that can walk into the forest). Feral and stalker sat in shifting stones around the tree. You should have most of your army safe in bubble that nothing can get to without simply running in. Everything that runs in is free stuff for me to kill.
    Even assuming an opponent has positioned a range unit close enough to walk into the forest they are not aiming and even a RAT 7 gun needs an 8 to hit the Ravagers.
    Next turn you starburst out of the bubble jamming and killing as much as possible. CoS enable this pretty nicely. Any heavies that are close can be removed by a stalker or feral as they will be ~7-8” infront of the stones if they tried to jam the ravagers.

    It which scenarios? I can think of several offhand where this just isn't going to work out mathematically.
    Give me a specific example and I’ll tell you how I play it.

    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.
    You are putting your opponent in a position where they have to throw stuff in a zone just to contest. While they are doing that mine are charging stuff and killing it. Your aim is to get a 2-3 point lead on the scenario from the feat. At that point your opponent is scrabbling to get back. I use WoO in my list as cheap chargers to contest the opponents zone. So I can score while they cant. It’s the same concept as Mk2 Krueger. You kill anything that could stop you scoring and watch everything else desperately rush to get forwards.
    If they stand still and kill the ravagers (which actually can be a pain with tough/no knockdown) front line then they haven’t advanced towards my zone and I can send in the next wave to block them again forcing two static turns on the opponent. Assuming there is even room from models to walk around the medium basis they are taking free strikes and walking into range of the central feral/stalker pair to be killed.
    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.
    That extra few inches is important in forcing your opponent to hold further back out of threat range. Also the SW don’t have pathfinder meaning they often can’t run straight up the field and are harder to reposition into the forest on the feat turn. You also get less bodies for the points so cant jam as much of the table. The problem I always have with them when I have used them is that if they are central on the table then they are holding up the rest of the army and my list needs to be fast and aggressive.
    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.
    Im not really sure what you are saying here? Trying to Jam with bloodtrackers has never worked for me. They are too easy to remove and being trampled through is a big issue. It can mean the difference between a loaded up heavy trampling into my heavies and breaking/killing stuff or just walking around and not doing much. If the blood trackers are held back to shoot you are not keeping your opponents battle line far enough back to protect your zone.

    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.
    Its never been a problem for me. He runs turn 1 and 2 with the rest of the ravagers, maybe a little behind. I’ve never had him shot before the feat. Then when he is needed he just moves up after the ravagers charge and pops hunters grace. Battle wizard isn’t needed. Magic weapons is also an option but I haven’t come across a situation where it has been needed yet. He can sit back fairly safe from the melee and provide his buff to the front line.
    It does come down to specific positioning, ranges, and threats that you have to take into account in each fight. It’s impossible to discuss those specifics without the full picture of the table state. Target prioritisation for Stranglehold is important. Post feat any hard target that cant walk into the zone should be strangleheld and removed from the equation. Anything that can just walk into the zone gets a stalker/feral to the face.
    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

  9. #49
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    ... Mk3. Scarsfell griffons. Would you really be reaching for a scarsfell over something else if its not with Una 2 or Tanith? ...
    Any caster that can buff damage beyond primal will be looking at them. They took a long time to be discovered but now they won't be forgotten. Kromac2 leaps to mind and I'm betting Kaya3 with find them synergetic with her kit.

  10. #50

    Default

    Any caster that can buff damage beyond primal will be looking at them. They took a long time to be discovered but now they won't be forgotten. Kromac2 leaps to mind and I'm betting Kaya3 with find them synergetic with her kit.
    Absolutely, but still not in a vacuum.
    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

  11. #51
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    Absolutely, but still not in a vacuum.
    Nothing is ever discussed in a complete vacuum. They may de discussed in relation role on table, buffs available, when compare to other similar pieces, in the present meta, etc...

    A lot of the stuff I think is bad in Circle looks great on the paper. Lots of positives that add up negative. Ravagers are one such unit for me. Scarsfells turned out to be a great package (my thanks to whoever put them first on the map!), stealth, high DEF, long Leash three initials turma out to only need a second buff, over primal, to hit above their 8pts. I'm now looking at ALL lights that way, turns out it's the only way to see pure melee lights in the table.

  12. #52
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoldGnome View Post
    - If they ignore forests it’s the wrong drop.
    Fair enough. Do you just conceed if you happen across the match? Isn't it possible to still play into these matches with smart list design? Would that not improve Wurmwood as a pairing to handle supposedly bad matches by using superior options?

    - Ferox, I haven’t actually seen skorne on a table in Mk3 but maybe that’s just here. That might change with the errata then I might consider this a problem.
    anything with significant sped or pathfinder + leap already was a problem under the old feat. These are even more potent now, and a real threat to consider. Especially where it might negate 16-26pts of your list with relative ease for roughly the sane cost in points.

    - If you go first your Ravager line is 19” up the table and threats to 30” so your opponent will naturally move up to slightly out of threat range so they don’t just get charged on turn 2. This means their position is going to be around 18” from their edge and not in a zone that matters (by that I mean not in the zone im scoring on). Any further than that and I can CoS, charge, hellmouth, port and sprint and they are just giving me free stuff to kill.
    What if you go 2nd? Further, ravagers 19" upfield top of 1 means that long range pieces are shooting ravagers, and AD pieces are easily shooting ravagers and possibly charging. So now you need favorable terrain (totally out of your control, especially since going 1st cost you board edge choice), or need to make terrain. Only Rapid growrh can actually get in front of 19" run ravagers. Sentry stones only get 18" up, pushing the treeline a few inches back. Incindentally, that's about where skinwalkers end up on a run. Plus, the oponent can counter-position the ravager threat, because PS13 charges are weak/non-threatening to a host of things, like warjack spam eg, Lich3 with a handful of Unyeilding helljacks. Vnethrax with counter charge heljacks. 6 of them counter-position the ravagers. The ravager threat is largely meaningless.

    - Turn 2. You assess the table. Most opponents will spread stuff out across the table to flank or threaten most of the board. Anything on a flank you can usually ignore because its unlikely to be able to walk far enough from the sides to threaten anything. The main concern is things directly infront of wormwood. Any heavies that walk particularly far (such as speed 7 ones with reach!) get a boosted stranglehold. So the best they can do is walk forwards. You have also created a blocker that your opponent probably needs to get out of the way before they can even think about getting something else forward and that something else is probably even further back.
    Your proposition begins with spreading out wide and feating for cover, when in fact you cannot do both with feat as-is. Your 2nd sentence then says flanking models are irelevant and can be ignored, when you first sentence proposesvyoure flanking. So your force can be largely ignored? How is your non-forested flanking move a threat while oponent flanking moves are not? This is a logical fallacy.
    Further, alot of what Im facing are jack lines so 5-6 heavies, all coming in to threat at on e its target saturation that scapels like Stranglehold cannot easily overcome. Not to mention counterspell potentials.

    Wurmwood wants to be in a zone and ideally the edge of the forest starts about 3-4”in front of the opponents army so even a 6” speed model is only walking 2” in. If there is no pathfinder you can be more aggressive with it. Working out the threat ranges of anything that hasn’t been strangleheld is important at this point. Now you move everything up in a blob in front of the tree. The front ravager can either be just inside the 3” (so front edge ~7” in front of wurmwood or further back if you still have things that can walk into the forest). Feral and stalker sat in shifting stones around the tree. You should have most of your army safe in bubble that nothing can get to without simply running in. Everything that runs in is free stuff for me to kill.
    The 8" port really has hurt this trick. Here's the turn 2s I se. If I go first (none of you discusion contemplates going 2nd) and try to get a god, agresive position for feat cover and alpha, Ive telegraphed that to the opponent and they counter position to basically obligate that I feat, or we get stuck in a stalemate of threats. If my threat is PS13 charges, theyl bait models out that can take that charge and deny hearts. If, as you say, the ravagers are spread wide, there's no concentrated threat and at best 2 ravagers hit a target. More likely 1. Or they bunker down the feat, secure their scoring piece, and run a sacrificial piece to make you remove it and expose to a counter next turn.

    Even assuming an opponent has positioned a range unit close enough to walk into the forest they are not aiming and even a RAT 7 gun needs an 8 to hit the Ravagers.
    Next turn you starburst out of the bubble jamming and killing as much as possible. CoS enable this pretty nicely. Any heavies that are close can be removed by a stalker or feral as they will be ~7-8” infront of the stones if they tried to jam the ravagers.
    Here, youre contra the previous examples. And bosted guns need boosted 10s if they can get in. Or CRA, or spray. Either way, youre either bunched in the forest, or spread wide and not. It cant be both. CoS only helps vs 1 jack with heavies or even lights (Amon, eg).


    Give me a specific example and I’ll tell you how I play it.
    You claimed superior scenario tech, but sure, why not?
    Entrenched, Take and Hold, The Pit, Incursion, outlast, Recon.


    You are putting your opponent in a position where they have to throw stuff in a zone just to contest. While they are doing that mine are charging stuff and killing it. Your aim is to get a 2-3 point lead on the scenario from the feat. At that point your opponent is scrabbling to get back. I use WoO in my list as cheap chargers to contest the opponents zone. So I can score while they cant. It’s the same concept as Mk2 Krueger. You kill anything that could stop you scoring and watch everything else desperately rush to get forwards.
    vs PS13 eavagers without hearts? Hardly an unstoppable threat tha will remove pieces from a zone with 2-4 models, especiall if as spread out as suggested. While also trying to body block. Even vs flanking moves or Ambushes. The difference vs MKII Krueger is so vast, Im not even sure where to start. The area, the effect, how overcomable it is, the lack of credible threat. And youre bringing in a new unit now, WoO, to cover roles

    If they stand still and kill the ravagers (which actually can be a pain with tough/no knockdown) front line then they haven’t advanced towards my zone and I can send in the next wave to block them again forcing two static turns on the opponent. Assuming there is even room from models to walk around the medium basis they are taking free strikes and walking into range of the central feral/stalker pair to be killed.
    Assuming the shaman isnt easily killed first, or anti-Tough isnt in play? Sure. And assuming 2nd lines cant clear the front? OK.

    That extra few inches is important in forcing your opponent to hold further back out of threat range. Also the SW don’t have pathfinder meaning they often can’t run straight up the field and are harder to reposition into the forest on the feat turn. You also get less bodies for the points so cant jam as much of the table. The problem I always have with them when I have used them is that if they are central on the table then they are holding up the rest of the army and my list needs to be fast and aggressive.

    Im not really sure what you are saying here? Trying to Jam with bloodtrackers has never worked for me. They are too easy to remove and being trampled through is a big issue. It can mean the difference between a loaded up heavy trampling into my heavies and breaking/killing stuff or just walking around and not doing much. If the blood trackers are held back to shoot you are not keeping your opponents battle line far enough back to protect your zone.
    These 2 paras contradict. PS13 ravager charges are pushing back enemy table position, but PS9/11WM tracker throws are not? OK. Sure. I cant help but fel its too much try-hard to sell ravagers as anything but a sub-par option that takes alot of work just to polish to rogh parity. Ravagers arent jamming anything significantly


    Its never been a problem for me. He runs turn 1 and 2 with the rest of the ravagers, maybe a little behind. I’ve never had him shot before the feat. Then when he is needed he just moves up after the ravagers charge and pops hunters grace. Battle wizard isn’t needed. Magic weapons is also an option but I haven’t come across a situation where it has been needed yet. He can sit back fairly safe from the melee and provide his buff to the front line.
    The shaman.
    Here, youre somehow deep in enemy lines, body locking BOTH zones, and the shaman is not charging, diesnt need battle wizard, and is provinging anti KD with a 6" walk and CMD6. But also lead from the front and did not get sniped running 19" top of 1 with no feat.
    I dont know what to say. Diagram please?

    It does come down to specific positioning, ranges, and threats that you have to take into account in each fight. It’s impossible to discuss those specifics without the full picture of the table state. Target prioritisation for Stranglehold is important. Post feat any hard target that cant walk into the zone should be strangleheld and removed from the equation. Anything that can just walk into the zone gets a stalker/feral to the face.
    Agreed. It also take honest concessions that opponents arent blindly walking into traps so you can live the dream with ravagers.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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