|
Post by sovereigngrax on Aug 18, 2017 17:33:05 GMT
I am often reminded here and elsewhere that the Protectorate is a faction which is defined by it's ability to deny enemy forces options. I have struggled to find this within the faction myself. I understand that the core units which create these play style are units like the choir, the covenant, etc but I have a struggle.
In general with my group I find that my opponents always have a valid and effective counter to whatever my denial might be. If it's shooting then they can apply magical shooting, if it's spell denial... well they don't need those spells in the first place. I was wondering if someone could discuss with me on a meta level or perhaps through some example lists how a member of the faithful can fully implement this core aspect of our faction.
What lists do you use that implement denial mechanics as core parts of their play style? What do you think about as you list build with denial in mind? Am I missing something that I should take some time to think about?
P.S. I'm coming away from a few games where each time I used a shielding, or a spell or whatever my opponent simply did something else which screwed me. I can think of many examples where push immunity was irrelevant because they could still throw me for example.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 18, 2017 18:06:49 GMT
You're not alone in struggling to find the denial. It's been gutted with the change to mk3. And sadly not replaced by anything. Even in mk2, Passage wasn't relevant vs many lists.
The best denial we have right now is Vindictus's feat to deliver a bunch of angry weapon masters.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Aug 18, 2017 19:01:27 GMT
In general with my group I find that my opponents always have a valid and effective counter to whatever my denial might be. If it's shooting then they can apply magical shooting, if it's spell denial... well they don't need those spells in the first place. P.S. I'm coming away from a few games where each time I used a shielding, or a spell or whatever my opponent simply did something else which screwed me. I can think of many examples where push immunity was irrelevant because they could still throw me for example. Emphasis added. I find this overstates real issues. It's true that magic guns are more prevalent now, making Passage less effective. But I think the context in which you play matters alot - how are you determining lists? Does this include competitive events or just casual play? Are these games vs the same opponent/list? A build can overcome Passage. However, I find the latter "they just didn't need those spells anyway" to be incredibly disingenuous. What spells do they not need? Were you playing Purification, and you're asserting the opponent just did not need their upkeeps? Were you playing vs debuff like Cryx and are asserting they don't need Parasite, Crippling Grasp, etc? Were you playing vs board control like Haley2 or Cephalex with telekinesis? And you're saying that did not matter? I'd have a very hard time believing that.
|
|
blakeh1
Junior Strategist
Posts: 181
|
Post by blakeh1 on Aug 19, 2017 0:56:14 GMT
Protectorate is still pretty good at spell denial between being untargetable or being able to strip upkeeps, or even just ignore the bonus ARM/DEF
it's true Passage is weak against many lists, especially when there is now even an objective that gives out magic weapons, but the choir still has good denial game with no spells, or at the very least, add + 2 to your damage rolls if nothing else
I do feel though that some of our corner case abilities are overvalued points wise. But that's not just a protectorate problem
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 19, 2017 8:13:22 GMT
I find that the wording on magical damage type and passage is odd. Whoever their technical writer is needs to get his head out of his ass and stop with the contradictions.
Page 57 of the rule book under Damage Type: Magical
"Magical damage can affect models with the incorporeal advantage. Attacks made with weapons that cause magical damage are not magic attacks; magical ranged weapons make ranged attacks, and magical melee weapons make melee attacks. Damage from spells is magical damage."
Passage reads
"Passage: (*ACTION)- The warjack cannot be targeted by non-magical ranged attacks. Passage lasts for one round."
The only portion of all of that, which makes it clear that a passaged jack can be hit, is the fact that it says "non-magicAL." However, grammatically, even if it was mentioning that it can still be hit by "magic attacks," magic would need to be switched to magical (semantics is a Female Dog). However, if you spend the time to ALSO look up "magic attacks," you'll see that all magic attacks, ranged and melee, are labeled as "magic attacks," not ranged magic attacks or ranged melee attacks.
Any technical writer will tell you that having to look things up in such a round-a-bout way to get confirmation is absolutely absurd. I've noticed this a few times with the rule book to cards, and it makes the game very unfriendly for new players. Basically, unless you memorize the entire, what, 100 or so pages of rules? you cannot properly understand how your own models function, let alone the ones on the other side of the table. What makes it even worse is that no matter how many games you play, you'll always be finding new rules and exceptions... /end rant
Passage should be switched so that magical ranged weapons are also blocked. The increase of magical based weaponry is due to the increased use of incorporeal models, not nullifying target control abilities. Switching it so that it gives jacks "Target Warjack cannot be targeted by ranged attacks" still allows it to be targeted by magic attacks and spells.
|
|
d3z
Junior Strategist
Posts: 129
|
Post by d3z on Aug 19, 2017 11:16:21 GMT
However, if you spend the time to ALSO look up "magic attacks," you'll see that all magic attacks, ranged and melee, are labeled as "magic attacks," not ranged magic attacks or ranged melee attacks The section on magic attacks pretty clearly states that only spells can be magic attacks. The term 'non-magical ranged attack' is not ambiguous. Not to defend the way the rules are written, but there's no merit to your argument here. To the OP: If you want to experience denial, I recommend playing Harbinger. If martyrdom doesn't annoy your opponents, no denial will. Killing an allegiant or the book can be resource consuming, and you can make it all for nothing. Everything has a counter of course, and the most common one for Harby is grievous wounds. It's never guaranteed that your denial abilities are going to be useful in any given game. Sample Harby list (not particularly competitive): ---------------------------------- Harbinger -24 - Hierophant: 3 - Devout: 9 - Vigilant: 9 - Crusader: 9 Vessel of Judgement: 18 Allegiant: 3 Covenant: 4 Vassal Mechanik: 1 Vassal Mechanik: 1 Wrack: 1 Wrack: 1 Choir (min): 4 Knights Exemplar: 9 Rhoven & Co: 9 Flame Bringers (max): 17 ----------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 19, 2017 15:20:53 GMT
I agree. Passage should just stop all ranged attacks. It makes no sense that we can stop magic. And we can stop guns. But magic guns are too much for us.
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 19, 2017 18:25:25 GMT
However, if you spend the time to ALSO look up "magic attacks," you'll see that all magic attacks, ranged and melee, are labeled as "magic attacks," not ranged magic attacks or ranged melee attacks The section on magic attacks pretty clearly states that only spells can be magic attacks. The term 'non-magical ranged attack' is not ambiguous. Not to defend the way the rules are written, but there's no merit to your argument here. You shouldn't take snip-its out of a post. It's like denying that anything other than 1 sentence was said during a 3 hour speech. Any offensive magic ability is also considered a magic attack, unless specified otherwise. An example would be the Vassal's Arcane Bolt. It's not a spell, yet it's still a magic attack.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 19, 2017 20:05:43 GMT
The section on magic attacks pretty clearly states that only spells can be magic attacks. The term 'non-magical ranged attack' is not ambiguous. Not to defend the way the rules are written, but there's no merit to your argument here. You shouldn't take snip-its out of a post. It's like denying that anything other than 1 sentence was said during a 3 hour speech. Any offensive magic ability is also considered a magic attack, unless specified otherwise. An example would be the Vassal's Arcane Bolt. It's not a spell, yet it's still a magic attack. Magic abilities are also spells. I think. If you can't cast because of an ability you can't use your magical abilities.
|
|
d3z
Junior Strategist
Posts: 129
|
Post by d3z on Aug 19, 2017 22:13:55 GMT
Magic abilities are also spells. I think. If you can't cast because of an ability you can't use your magical abilities. Correct. From 'Casting a spell with magic ability', "The spells a model with the magic ability special ability can cast can cast are listed in its entry under magic ability.". I replied to that specific point demonic because your entire narrative around 'odd wording with magical damage and passage' hinged on that sentence, which was false. I'm sure we can agree on other parts of the rules that were/are poorly written, but not here.
|
|
|
Post by sovereigngrax on Aug 20, 2017 3:53:37 GMT
Thanks for the discussion! Toward paradox, I admit i'm still learning and some of these things could simply be me building weak lists or not anticipating or understanding all of my opponents options. I realize that I'm leaving out many variables in my personal experience of the game. I'm just saying that in my subjective play with mostly casual lists I find that it can be tricky to implement effective denial mechanics.
I've had the most luck with very jack heavy lists that seem a bit more forgiving. Again, this thread for me is hopefully just an opportunity to hear how other plays outside of my experience play the Protectorate and implements the toolkit of the faction.
I play against mostly Khador(hugely metal heavy lists in general), Skorne (the guys just plain better than me). I'll face Circle, Cygnar, Cryx and Retribution eventually as some friends get more active.
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 20, 2017 4:34:26 GMT
Skorne works a lot like Menoth, save they specialize in weapon master rather than denial and have the option of using construct infantry with heavy armor, but lower movement, instead of Menoth having the option of mass fire. You can pretty much imagine yourself playing a copy of yourself to understand how to play against Skorne. Unfortunately, however, because Skorne is so unforgiving, their players tend to get highly skilled as what seems to be your case. When you run up against this wall the fact that Menoth is more forgiving becomes a godsend. Make sure to include some bombarding units and remove a bunch of the 1 box infantry that Skorne relies on. Then target the Basilisk Krea, Gladiator Titan, Cyclops Shaman, Extoller Soulward... and that should pretty much nuder him.
Against Khador heavy lists, you end up running into the troubles of 20+ arm x.x; a lot... However, remember that with even average dice, an aimed inaccurate shot can reliably hit them. Khador is very straight forward, which is a plus for us. If you get to go first, take as much of the table as you can, while placing "piece trading" units up front. The more you block them with terrain and petty jacks like the Dervish and the Crusader, the more they will be forced to attack only those units, allowing your alpha turn to dismantle as many of their jacks as possible. Magical guns are also not something they are known for, so taking 2 min units of choir and separating them out would probably be a good move. I used to play skorne very much the same way as Khador has been playing as of late and I always ran into terrain problems. Even with the Gladiator's Animus, getting in close to an enemy that is using terrain properly becomes a serious horses ass.
|
|
|
Post by souleater on Aug 22, 2017 8:27:46 GMT
Skorne works a lot like Menoth, save they specialize in weapon master rather than denial... Not sure I understand this as PoM has many more Weapon Masters? What am I missing?
|
|
demonic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 649
|
Post by demonic on Aug 22, 2017 19:01:48 GMT
mmm you're actually correct. Skorne does have a lot of weapon masters, but most are on pieces we don't use (medium infantry). Immortals are magical, nihilators are tough, pretty much everything has a good attached ability, but our mainly used infantry are there for reasons besides weapon master. Skorne's most notable model, on the other hand, does have weapon master and should always be feared x.x (molik karn) He's one of our models that are actually worth his points (21 pts for future sight, intuition, PS 14x2 weapon master who can combine to make it a singular PS 19, and gives our caster a possible 5" repo.)
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 22, 2017 19:58:36 GMT
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't call Skorne the weapon master faction. that's us for sure since every Exemplar model(who isn't named Kreoss) is a weapon master,plus a bunch of other weapon masters. Total of 7 units, 3 casters, and 8 solos(soon to be 10 with the new paladin and exemplar dude). We're certainly best able to bring the most to the table. My Vindictus list has 29 weapon master models(3 units of KE, Nicea, 2 monks, and flamebringers) and that's not even just going for sheer numbers.
Skorne just has 4 units, 1 caster, 1 beast, and 1 solo(master tormentor).
Skorne is a true synergy faction, just like Protectorate was/should be. They work off of layering buffs on their beasts and infantry.
|
|