|
Post by Trollock on Nov 15, 2017 7:48:43 GMT
Are you guys all insane or something? The problem with Grissels feat was always about our beast having a 1" melee range and that they could be knocked down to remove unyielding. That problem is gone. Sure, before you could theoretically have one of your beasts engage something and get +2 ARM against shooting, but that was incredibly corner case, and it was definitely not going to improve her game in to a gunline.
Saying that gunlines do not care about +2 DEF is also a truth with modification. Sure, most RAT 5-6 stuff that shoots boosted hit rolls against DEF 14 will still hit. a Boosted 9 is about 75% chance to hit. Now add Janissas hill, and they could need to roll an 11 (about 50%). Now add concealment from the GK or a forest and they could potentially need to roll a 13 (about 25% i think? cant remember...) Having access to DEF stacking means they will be hard pressed to one round a beast. And yes i know caine 3 will still do it, but he is more of an exception than a rule tbh, and having the old unyielding sure as hell wouldnt save you there.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Nov 15, 2017 8:59:04 GMT
Yeah I disagree with most of what is being said here.
How often where people shooting engaged models under feat? It almost never happens. This change means you can play non fennblade infantry and get the arm bonus.
It also helps for example against the Skorne double Cats lists where they used to jump into the back arc.
It's not a huge change, but Grissel2 doesn't exactly need a buff.
|
|
|
Post by blackice on Nov 15, 2017 10:58:29 GMT
arm 18 fenns getting killed by a POW 8 inf charge attack on average die and def 14 inf against a gunline is nothing to write home about
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Nov 15, 2017 11:35:03 GMT
Where are you getting +2 DEF from? Ha! I’m combining two conversations about Grissel2 here. I saw the comment about gun lines dealing with deflection in the other thread and carried my animosity over to this one where I’m also seeing +2 arm being given no love. If you keep a unit of Fennblades in the stone, in command and give them unyielding from the feat that makes for some sad dice! But the change to unyielding would make it less good against gunlines because it would only apply to MELEE attacks. I will say that I think the change is ultimately a benefit to the game. It's an easier rule to understand and more generally applicable, but it's technically worse power-wise than the current version of unyielding. EDIT: As to the question of getting shot at while in melee, I just played a game last night where my opponent ran two units of Satyxis Gunslingers. I wasn't running Grissel, but they definitely had no trouble shooting into melee. Black penny is a thing.
|
|
mattmcd
Junior Strategist
Posts: 521
|
Post by mattmcd on Nov 15, 2017 13:34:47 GMT
arm 18 fenns getting killed by a POW 8 inf charge attack on average die and def 14 inf against a gunline is nothing to write home about Why would you allow a speed 6 unit with reach, +2 speed minifeat, +1 speed with dash and 2” reach get charged? They even have reposition to engage the 2nd wave. If they’re getting charged that’s user error.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Nov 15, 2017 13:59:46 GMT
Ha! I’m combining two conversations about Grissel2 here. I saw the comment about gun lines dealing with deflection in the other thread and carried my animosity over to this one where I’m also seeing +2 arm being given no love. If you keep a unit of Fennblades in the stone, in command and give them unyielding from the feat that makes for some sad dice! But the change to unyielding would make it less good against gunlines because it would only apply to MELEE attacks. I will say that I think the change is ultimately a benefit to the game. It's an easier rule to understand and more generally applicable, but it's technically worse power-wise than the current version of unyielding. EDIT: As to the question of getting shot at while in melee, I just played a game last night where my opponent ran two units of Satyxis Gunslingers. I wasn't running Grissel, but they definitely had no trouble shooting into melee. Black penny is a thing. Gunlines don't tend to shoot you if you're engaged. Either they have ways of disengaging or they play to not get engaged. Hence you would rarely get the +2 arm bonus against guns anyway.
There are obviously corner-case scenarios but black penny is super rare.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Nov 15, 2017 14:34:21 GMT
Ha! I’m combining two conversations about Grissel2 here. I saw the comment about gun lines dealing with deflection in the other thread and carried my animosity over to this one where I’m also seeing +2 arm being given no love. If you keep a unit of Fennblades in the stone, in command and give them unyielding from the feat that makes for some sad dice! But the change to unyielding would make it less good against gunlines because it would only apply to MELEE attacks. I will say that I think the change is ultimately a benefit to the game. It's an easier rule to understand and more generally applicable, but it's technically worse power-wise than the current version of unyielding. EDIT: As to the question of getting shot at while in melee, I just played a game last night where my opponent ran two units of Satyxis Gunslingers. I wasn't running Grissel, but they definitely had no trouble shooting into melee. Black penny is a thing. The point here is that there is now no way for melee attacks to go around unyielding. Previously, you made sure to knock the target down or to engage from 2" away and you would ignore unyielding. That was WAY more common than your things being shot while engaged. Now your beasts are reliably ARM 22 against melee, and that means they are super hard to kill. It is not impossible but it requires really significant effort, and it is way more reliable. You can "know" that your beast will survive a charging jack or two even since they can not just knock it down and ignore your feat.
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Nov 15, 2017 17:18:43 GMT
But the change to unyielding would make it less good against gunlines because it would only apply to MELEE attacks. I will say that I think the change is ultimately a benefit to the game. It's an easier rule to understand and more generally applicable, but it's technically worse power-wise than the current version of unyielding. EDIT: As to the question of getting shot at while in melee, I just played a game last night where my opponent ran two units of Satyxis Gunslingers. I wasn't running Grissel, but they definitely had no trouble shooting into melee. Black penny is a thing. Gunlines don't tend to shoot you if you're engaged. Either they have ways of disengaging or they play to not get engaged. Hence you would rarely get the +2 arm bonus against guns anyway.
There are obviously corner-case scenarios but black penny is super rare.
I think black penny is going to be much less rare once the cryx CID is done. You also lose the protection against blast damage, e-leaps, and continuous effects where you had it before. There are, I think, a lot more ways to hit engaged models with non-melee attacks than you realize. Each one by itself might be uncommon, but they stack up pretty significantly.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Nov 15, 2017 20:35:46 GMT
I think that feats that grant Unyielding should just grant +2 ARM instead.
|
|
|
Post by greenjello on Nov 15, 2017 21:36:21 GMT
I would prefer "Unyielding: This model gains +2 ARM when engaging or engaged by an opposing model" I think that goes to intention, and whether or not the designers believe that running to engage to avoid getting shot is a viable tactic. If they do, then your change is an improvement, other than understanding engaging might be a bit more complex to newbies.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Nov 15, 2017 22:09:34 GMT
Heh, next we'll ask for carapace to work as long as you are neither engaged nor engaging
|
|
joedj
Junior Strategist
Posts: 513
|
Post by joedj on Nov 18, 2017 17:38:47 GMT
I like the counter play possibility to consider throwing or KDing or making a model Stationary to bypass an ability such as the current Unyielding. The game is full of counter play possibilities that negate certain opposing models' traits, whether TOUGH, high DEF, Stealth, blast immune, etc. I do not like that clever or creative options of counter play are eliminated by rules changes that seek to 'dumb down' a game that will remain hugely complex regardless. And tactical removal of Unyielding is hardly a 'Gotcha!' play. I don't like the current iteration of Unyielding because the main counter play, aside from shooting to destruction, is simply, your models have 2" melee, mine with Unyielding have 0.5" (Elemental TB warbeasts). At the beginning of MK3 a change was required to fix Gang so that a KD did not remove the bonus, (change from 'engaging' to 'in melee range'). A new improved CID version of Unyielding, IMHO, would provide the bonus when EITHER model was in melee range, which is what newer players always expect but have to be taught otherwise. And if a clause needs to be added to the Unyielding rule to allow counter play, example "Cannot gain Unyielding while KD or Stationary", I'd prefer it. Hard to be actively 'unyielding' if one is prone on the ground or immobilized, unless the fluff is Unyielding = too hard piñata!
|
|
|
Post by grabsnikk on Nov 18, 2017 18:10:37 GMT
I think that feats that grant Unyielding should just grant +2 ARM instead. That would make Grissel2 a lot stronger which is can only be good. I find that I don't play her much because she currently has feat which is just two abilities tacked together.
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Nov 18, 2017 19:04:38 GMT
I like the counter play possibility to consider throwing or KDing or making a model Stationary to bypass an ability such as the current Unyielding. The game is full of counter play possibilities that negate certain opposing models' traits, whether TOUGH, high DEF, Stealth, blast immune, etc. I do not like that clever or creative options of counter play are eliminated by rules changes that seek to 'dumb down' a game that will remain hugely complex regardless. And tactical removal of Unyielding is hardly a 'Gotcha!' play. I don't like the current iteration of Unyielding because the main counter play, aside from shooting to destruction, is simply, your models have 2" melee, mine with Unyielding have 0.5" (Elemental TB warbeasts). At the beginning of MK3 a change was required to fix Gang so that a KD did not remove the bonus, (change from 'engaging' to 'in melee range'). A new improved CID version of Unyielding, IMHO, would provide the bonus when EITHER model was in melee range, which is what newer players always expect but have to be taught otherwise. And if a clause needs to be added to the Unyielding rule to allow counter play, example "Cannot gain Unyielding while KD or Stationary", I'd prefer it. Hard to be actively 'unyielding' if one is prone on the ground or immobilized, unless the fluff is Unyielding = too hard piñata! liking want enough to express my agreement with this. This is what I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. Thank you for putting it more clearly than I could!
|
|
mattmcd
Junior Strategist
Posts: 521
|
Post by mattmcd on Nov 18, 2017 20:16:37 GMT
I disagree. The rules are too complex and any move towards simplicity is an improvement.
|
|