|
Post by narvt86 on Sept 9, 2017 19:11:01 GMT
but that being said , maybe its because i suck with them lol
|
|
|
Post by tapecrawler on Sept 9, 2017 20:12:37 GMT
This subject came up a couple of months ago during the Stormlance CID. Will Pagani's response was mind blowing. He came right out and said that the lance rule was not going away and it would NOT be applied to Stormlances. No bias there . . . 🙄
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Sept 9, 2017 20:30:10 GMT
This subject came up a couple of months ago during the Stormlance CID. Will Pagani's response was mind blowing. He came right out and said that the lance rule was not going away and it would NOT be applied to Stormlances. No bias there . . . 🙄 Like anything would have been better than "Just cause"
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Sept 10, 2017 0:05:59 GMT
It's a sucky rule, but they think it's thematic or whatever. I don't really care either way. But Cav with the Lance rule should get a points reduction simply because it's too difficult to get the value out of them when their impact on the game is generally a single charge.
A single charge of Uhlans is not 20 points of value. You have to find a way to get a second turns worth of work out of them for them to be really worth it.
They should be 17 points. No less, no more.
|
|
|
Post by narvt86 on Sept 10, 2017 1:45:16 GMT
if u want to be thematic the storm lance CAN keep their lance in melee but to use a lance in melee it must be a short one.... so give them a RANGE 1 melle lance charge or not. we lost it whitout the charge fine but they lose their range seem thematic to me
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Sept 10, 2017 5:06:24 GMT
Wait people think Ulhans are useless once in melee? Yeah sure they won't go killing heavies, but they are still mat 7 with two attacks and one of them is pow 12, pow 12 is respectable and high enough to kill most infantry and reliably damage lights . Sure you don't want your Ulhan to get jammed, but they can clearly unjam themselves with two attacks a piece, saying their attacks are useless is just wrong. With a bigger volume of attack they actually have an easier time unjaming themselves than shocktrooper. Yeah Lance is annoying but PP doesn't seem to want to change this rule, it's been mentionned more than enough to know people don't like it and they still haven't shown sign they will do anything to change it. Better learn to live with it I guess. Indeed units with melee capability to cause damage against armor are usually useless after the charge. They do jam the enemy, but that's all, unlike warjacks who are still able to kill the enemy armor provided you put some focus points. Annnnnnnnnnd. Models with a weapon with Lance are quite expensive for their points, and they don't have enough compensate for the penalty. Well, except for the annoying truth that you can't redirect the charge attack and the buglike interaction with Close Combat, I don't think that Lance ability itself have much problem. For example, although I am a Cygnar gamer, I do think that adding Lance to Storm Lances' melee weapon&give them a weapon with Close Combat does nothing to their performance. Still they can shoot the enemy in distance&Reposition back, and still they can crack armor when charge, and still they do nothing against armor due to their melee weapon without a boosted damage roll. What would be changed from now? Well, some of them jamming the enemy will no longer catch them all in their 2" melee range(and perhaps losing Electro-Leap?), and it is indeed a nerf, but that's all. Just for adding an annoying interaction does nothing to the other cavalry units, nor nerf the Lances - all it does would be give the indulgence to the Storm Lances. The real point is actual performance of the unit on the battlefield, and the annoyance of Lance ability has a little portion to this. Indeed, it is annoying, but some annoyance would be endured if you have enough reward. The problem is, they don't have the rightful rewards for the penalty. Honestly, what does Uhlan do after the charge? Just jamming is the real duty for the heavy cavalry? I don't think so. And though it is not so easy to see, if they are charged first then they lost the most reason to be fielded(even Storm Lances are does little in such situation, though, but Cygnar is thirst for a jamming unit too -_-). Well, I think that one-shot missile nature of the cavalry seems the problem. For the ranged troops, even with Reposition[3"] they are expected to be have the enough distance to not get charged following turn. But, even with Reposition[5"] melee units that was charged this turn would not have enough distance to charge next turn, and charge is essential for the melee units when they needs for the anti armor capability - and also want to clear extra troopers for the cavalry. For the most units with Weapon Master and does not have damage box, they would manage this by many numbers - so even if some of them are charged, you would have more. I think that the model with a weapon with Lance should able to retreat safe distance after the charge without much retaliations.... Also allow to redirect the charge target when using a weapon with Lance, and remove Close Combat from the history. Else, change Lance ability and when you use the weapon with it if you are not charged it gets a boosted damage roll... seems not so bad, I think. Then they still crack armor... Although it is somewhat weird. I don't think that the either cases are extreme at all, because usually 'heavy cavalry' styled units costs 12/20 - if you bring five of them then they would be expensive than a powerful heavy warjack in the faction but weaker. Yes, you would save some focus, but is it really enough?
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Sept 10, 2017 18:57:57 GMT
if u want to be thematic the storm lance CAN keep their lance in melee but to use a lance in melee it must be a short one.... so give them a RANGE 1 melle lance charge or not. we lost it whitout the charge fine but they lose their range seem thematic to me Seems legit to me... You can't possibly fight with a range 2 lance in close combat. The Lance rule proves this to be true!
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Sept 10, 2017 21:30:47 GMT
Did anyone bring this issue up with the rules forum on the PP Forums? If it is this much of a potential problem, they might actually fix it. They are fully aware of the problem, but they didn't touch it for a decade. I don't think that they will review it so easily. I remember when people were speculating on what Mk3 would be like, and the one thing everyone could agree on was that Lance would be on the chopping block.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Sept 11, 2017 2:24:14 GMT
Well, people thought Mk3 would be you know... Mk3 instead of Mk2.5.
|
|
|
Post by tapecrawler on Sept 11, 2017 2:47:33 GMT
MKIII has been a mixed blessing in my eyes. They fixed a lot of things, mainly jacks and the mainstream units but in the process took away a lot of flavor and unique stuff from solos and character units. I'm not really a Cygnar fan but still own both versions of the Black 13. Too bad they seem pretty vanilla now. Same with my Great Bears, I own two units of them after I misplaced two of the three of the first batch, (I didn't find them until I moved!) and now they seem to be pale reflections of their MKII versions. It used to be that the character solos and character units were given a hard look at the beginning of most list construction and now they're only included in lists because they count towards theme points. That's too bad because it was an added spice to the game that is now a much blander dish.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Sept 11, 2017 3:13:43 GMT
Mk3 didn't go any where near far enough in cutting down on rules fat. Had a few knee jerk reactions to things that were over used, like solos and made jacks more points efficient than units.
Probably the only real improvement of Mk3 is the willingness to change things (that aren't in a starter box).
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Sept 11, 2017 6:31:34 GMT
You can't possibly fight with a range 2 lance in close combat. The Lance rule proves this to be true! See, the way I look at it is that a normal lance is designed to use the momentum of the horse and rider to pierce the target, not be swung and jabbed with one hand like a sword or something. HOWEVER, the weapons used by Stormlances are not normal lances, they are basically big Tesla rods; they are powerful energy weapons, not just simple rods of wood or steel. So they don't really have to bash someone to hurt them, just sort of lightly prod them. Well, that's how I think of it. I realize that it would make sense in that case for the damage to be electrical, but for what I assume are gameplay reasons PP don't have typed melee damage, only typed ranged damage, so in this case I give it a pass.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Sept 11, 2017 8:44:13 GMT
But Uhlans lances have basically a grenade attached to the end... All they have to do is poke in the general direction!
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Sept 11, 2017 9:40:08 GMT
But Uhlans lances have basically a grenade attached to the end... All they have to do is poke in the general direction! Ye-es, true, but after you've charged and triggered it you probably didn't have time to replace the explosive charge. At least that's how I interpret the rule in this case. Do I like the rule from a fluffy perspective? Yes. Do I like it from a game play perspective when it's on my models and not enemy equivalents? Not particularly. But in the stated cases I can see fluff justifications for it, is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Sept 11, 2017 23:18:12 GMT
But Uhlans lances have basically a grenade attached to the end... All they have to do is poke in the general direction! Ye-es, true, but after you've charged and triggered it you probably didn't have time to replace the explosive charge. At least that's how I interpret the rule in this case. Even if someone else moved into melee with the Uhlans and they're now counter-attacking with their un-used bomb lances?
|
|