Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Apr 3, 2018 22:46:55 GMT
I mean, ok, but with either of those two, is a third unit of assault troopers really more enticing than, say, morely + foreguard / halbs / pressgangers (exact choice would be dependent on caster)? My contention is no. For one thing is attack economy output (there's simply less attacks), and another is while they are cheaper than some of those examples, with exception of forgeguard its not significantly cheaper.
I dunno, its just a bizarre change and these odd corner cases aside, i don't see the practical utility in FA:3.
I suppose there's a very minor case to be made for if you plan on rocking Lynus and Edrea, but the more i look at it, the more that isn't a great use of morely or points, even for Lukas. Too much of what Morely brings to the table is utterly wasted on that pair. So far since the feat change iterations of risk vs. reward style, almost without exception i've gotten more mileage out of rocking a good merc unit rather than the pair. Sure, it requires a slightly less atom-bomb style of play with him, but only marginally. Meanwhile Morely'd Forge Guard or halbs get a shit ton more work done turn to turn.
If you're dead set on bringing the pair, Assault troopers are a good second to the RO'd mercs, but i still can't see rocking 3 units.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Apr 3, 2018 22:54:49 GMT
Honest question: has anyone, for the point of anything other than being a complete insufferable contrarian, actually said or thought "God, this damned FA:2 on Assault Troopers is positively ruining my freedom of list design." Assault troopers are pretty good, but i simply cannot fathom a situation where i'd want 3 units of them. There's no way in hell you're going to take that in Prima, and i cannot fathom with the depth and breadth of Opus' choices why you'd opt for 3 units of these guys. i mean, ultimately it hurts nothing, but it's one of those things that just left me scratching my head. The overall changes to Rocketmen are good honestly, they were a tad much in week 4. The point cost downward on railess is interesting, as is Syvestro's super fuel affecting all constructs. increasing Prospero's CMD to match his CTRL is a nice quality of life improvement (I.e. - is jack in control ? Jack gets vet leader). Regarding Gearhart: i'm at the point of near complete fatigue trying to make this gun swapping shit work. That said, i think this is literally the closest they have come yet to making this a reasonably easily understood collection of rules. I really hope we don't see future changes to Arms Caddy / Johnny, or anything to do with this gun swapping stuff, because its getting a little tiresome to try to figure out how to make an abstraction work on the table (i.e. - Clogg handing Gearhart a gun) without opening up timing issues and confusion regarding core rules etc. For a DEF skew. Ashen Veil and Cloak of Ash is a legit combo; having 15 Ashen Veil troops instead of just 10 sounds like a legitimate reason. DEF15 against Melee and no charges if you don't ignore clouds is pretty legit. I guess what I'm saying is that this unit is legit? Yep, very legit.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Apr 4, 2018 10:47:43 GMT
I dont think any one is disputing that ATs are legit. The question is more "would you ever play 3 units?"
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Apr 4, 2018 11:29:45 GMT
I dont think any one is disputing that ATs are legit. The question is more "would you ever play 3 units?" I would -- at 13pts its not incredibly hard to fit them in
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Apr 5, 2018 20:34:46 GMT
I dont think any one is disputing that ATs are legit. The question is more "would you ever play 3 units?" It's like, you read my post! Juris - never said AT aren't "legit". I said i see no reason to take 3 units of them necessitating FA3. The unit is good. 3 units of them i see zero point to or for. Also veiled AT's are great, definitely. If you are taking enough Liberator's and running Lukas and blowing your focus wad to Veil up all or even most of your 3 units of AT's (ya know, what we were discussing, and the post you quoted....), you're Lukas'ing wrong, IMHO. killroundears - 13 points isn't hard to fit into a list. 39 points of literal redundancy seems a hard sell. I can even get on board with 2 units in certain situations. I simply don't get why you'd ever, ever take 3 units. But i mean, hey, for those of you looking to high five each other that you can dump otherwise perfectly good money into 3 boxes of Assault Troopers, solid, you can rest easy that you have that option should you desire it.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Apr 5, 2018 20:54:13 GMT
I dont think any one is disputing that ATs are legit. The question is more "would you ever play 3 units?" I know, and Haight , I understood you. I was just awkwardly explaining why someone (including me) might play 3 units. In fact, I've been building lists that have 3 units, because 13 points is just so cheap for dudes that are decently durable who can charge at POW15 without any help. If you think of them as 13 point cavalry units who threat 3" less, maybe it makes sense? 6 Stormblade Infantrymen cost 10 points to get POW15 charges in Cygnar, but they die far more easily and also only have 1" melee range. Storm Lances are the closest analogue, but they cost 20 points (and threat 3" further) and are slightly more survivable (plus electroleap/impact attacks). I've found that you can fit plenty of other models into your list even after bringing 3 full units of Assault Troopers (including support models, a full small based unit, plus a moderate warjack loadout). Honestly, when I've been messing around with Lukas lists, the question has been why not bring a third unit? I point you again to the 13 point pricetag ( very cheap), and the fact that they have solid defensive abilities and very good offensive output. Also, with Lukas, as long as something isn't spell warded, you can pretty easily get their hitting power up to 17 against a single target, an often up to 19. That's Cryx level hitting power for very, very cheap. Edit: To clarify my position a little bit. If you want a melee based list in your CG pair; they are the only way to do it. That said, I think Lukas accomplishes that aim pretty well. Also, I think that you if you build a Lukas list that is intended to lean heavily on his assassination threat, then you are probably doing it wrong. For instance, I think that a single Liberator is probably always enough. The threat of what he can do (and your opponent's altered play as a result) will be his true strength in that regard; you'll hold that Liberator back and covet it all game, likely never needing to use it, while your opponent hides his warcaster like a cloistered monk.
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Apr 5, 2018 21:21:59 GMT
i don't get why its so crazy to consider playing 3 units of a good melee unit you can deliver behind clouds / be resiliant to gunfire with. 3x behind a cloud with lukas and you can even bring ragman. then have something like a blast immune screen of rocketmen to fight off the other screening force.
3x with syvestro too seems sweet. people WILL drop their shooting defenses into crucible guard and having a strong melee unit gives you a lot of space
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Apr 5, 2018 22:58:45 GMT
I find the contention that a melee list in Crucible is only achievable via Assault Trooper spam objectively ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Apr 5, 2018 23:31:25 GMT
I find the contention that a melee list in Crucible is only achievable via Assault Trooper spam objectively ludicrous. why are you so defensive and upset at the idea of bringing 3 assault troopers? you're calling peoples ideas ludicrous, saying people would be wasting perfectly good money by buying 3 boxes, and saying that you can't ever even see a time where someone would want 3 honestly, seems like you're making a storm in a tea cup over bringing an extra 13pt unit in a list?
|
|