|
Post by bloodhawk on Jun 29, 2018 16:32:04 GMT
Quick question, OP says that Feral can have bounding put on him then primal. Wouldn't the casting of primal wipe out bounding? I thought you could only be affected by 1 animus at a time. If that is the case then that changes the hypothesis by the OP a fair bit I would think.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 29, 2018 16:36:09 GMT
Spot on bloodhawk. Its the total package that puts it over in this case. Bounding + HM + Pathfinder + fast heavy + cheap primal. Kick out any one of those pillars and the combo is fine. Personally I would want to see bounding find its way into our options but lose primal on the feral for something else. Let the Gorax and goat have their day and give the feral something else that's useful. (Please not braying of chaos!) sirk sounds like a better upgrade to apply to the razor wing
|
|
Hashmal
Junior Strategist
Posts: 557
|
Post by Hashmal on Jun 29, 2018 16:36:10 GMT
That is true. However, the Feral can Primal itself, which is what the OP was referring to. This would cancel Bounding, but can be done after a charge and before the first attack.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 29, 2018 16:37:34 GMT
Quick question, OP says that Feral can have bounding put on him then primal. Wouldn't the casting of primal wipe out bounding? I thought you could only be affected by 1 animus at a time. If that is the case then that changes the hypothesis by the OP a fair bit I would think. 1. cast bounding on feral 2. feral charges 3. before making its attack the feral casts primal 4. proceed with attacks Only the feral (and technically the gorax but meh) would be able to do this hence the issue being with the feral.
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Jun 29, 2018 16:38:50 GMT
Oh, and since we are at it, I would complete the Gnarlhorn with: Impetuos Slam: this model gains Bulldoze while performing a Slam power attack. Fixing once a for all the absurdity of a counter move that is almost impossible to make happen. This way there wouldn't be the need to a p+s increase for the gnarlhorn (maybe it could go down 1pt) since it would be a support/softhitter and it wouldn't compete in the same narrow space of the riphorn (and feral). I'm sure the current proposed str upgrade for him it's not gonna work, or it's just moving the problem: we cannot have 3 beasts in the 12-16 range that are only supposed to punch, probably two of them won't just be played. PS: I agree with oncomingstorm that factoring in Hunter's Mark in the 16" or more range is at very best optimistic (and you probably also need a stone teleport of the Wayfarer in order to do it or a VERY situational battle wizard use). I like the bulldoze on slams idea. It would do ALOT to help out counterslam. I might even actually consider using a gnarlhorn at that point.
|
|
|
Post by bloodhawk on Jun 29, 2018 16:57:07 GMT
Quick question, OP says that Feral can have bounding put on him then primal. Wouldn't the casting of primal wipe out bounding? I thought you could only be affected by 1 animus at a time. If that is the case then that changes the hypothesis by the OP a fair bit I would think. 1. cast bounding on feral 2. feral charges 3. before making its attack the feral casts primal 4. proceed with attacks Only the feral (and technically the gorax but meh) would be able to do this hence the issue being with the feral. Ah, gotcha, that makes sense. I would still argue that an Arm16 Feral running to kill something from downtown isn't really that big of a problem (it happens in almost all factions in a few cases). That being said, I would be more than happy for the Feral to lose Primal for a different animus if it meant we could have bounding returned.
I am just so tired of slamming my head against a wall trying to think of ways to fight my opponents without relying on hunter's mark to get similar threat ranges. It's so bad that for the first 6 months of MkIII I played Wurmwood as my armour cracker and used hellmouth almost exclusively as a threat extender. Just sucks to be the primal and hunter's mark faction IMO
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 29, 2018 17:48:49 GMT
1. cast bounding on feral 2. feral charges 3. before making its attack the feral casts primal 4. proceed with attacks Only the feral (and technically the gorax but meh) would be able to do this hence the issue being with the feral. Ah, gotcha, that makes sense. I would still argue that an Arm16 Feral running to kill something from downtown isn't really that big of a problem (it happens in almost all factions in a few cases). That being said, I would be more than happy for the Feral to lose Primal for a different animus if it meant we could have bounding returned.
I am just so tired of slamming my head against a wall trying to think of ways to fight my opponents without relying on hunter's mark to get similar threat ranges. It's so bad that for the first 6 months of MkIII I played Wurmwood as my armour cracker and used hellmouth almost exclusively as a threat extender. Just sucks to be the primal and hunter's mark faction IMO Especially when other factions can easily get access to HM through Lanyssa
|
|
|
Post by Forsaken on Jun 29, 2018 19:29:37 GMT
This is a topic I've always being interested in since I was one of those players playing outside of Krueger/Brad/Morv and I suffered a lot from this change, so I gave a lot of thoughts about possible answers. I agree that, with where the game is sitting now, a return of a straight +2" threat would probably be too much, expecially if the supposed CiD changes are going throught. My proposal would be a different animus providing +2" spd and +2 mat for trample and slam attacks. This way we can keep the goat fluff (even more goatish if you ask me! ^^) AND get a situational threat extender. Considering the loss of initials I am sure it would be totally viable and not a game breaker while still retaining the option of a conditional extender. Also, it would situationally fix mat, another issue we have with several beasts. (it could also last one round, so having a minor sinergy with the rare counterslam) My2cents- It's funny you bring this up. I've been thinking about this very thing for the last 2 days. I do however like the Earth's Blessing on a living beast, it makes a big difference for many of our def reliant warlocks. Somebody mentioned this animus would be better for the Razorwing and I agree.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 29, 2018 19:48:53 GMT
I would imagine the rationale behind the change in animus from Mk2 to Mk3, is that they felt that 'Earths Blessing' was something all Circle Warlocks needed/should to have access to. If they had just left it on the Woldwatcher, then themes that only allow living warbeasts would never be able to access Earths Blessing. This implies that MK3 was designed with themes in mind... Does anyone think so?
|
|
|
Post by Forsaken on Jun 29, 2018 20:13:26 GMT
I would imagine the rationale behind the change in animus from Mk2 to Mk3, is that they felt that 'Earths Blessing' was something all Circle Warlocks needed/should to have access to. If they had just left it on the Woldwatcher, then themes that only allow living warbeasts would never be able to access Earths Blessing. This implies that MK3 was designed with themes in mind... Does anyone think so? I do think themes were intended, in some form, from the onset. They probably went through some changes though. I also think some work as intended better then others too.
|
|
Hashmal
Junior Strategist
Posts: 557
|
Post by Hashmal on Jun 29, 2018 20:38:48 GMT
I would imagine the rationale behind the change in animus from Mk2 to Mk3, is that they felt that 'Earths Blessing' was something all Circle Warlocks needed/should to have access to. If they had just left it on the Woldwatcher, then themes that only allow living warbeasts would never be able to access Earths Blessing. This implies that MK3 was designed with themes in mind... Does anyone think so? They pretty overtly stated as much when Mk. III released. However, I have no doubt that themes changed internally from what they were during Mk. III testing and launch to when the themes themselves actually launched.
|
|
|
Post by bloodhawk on Jun 29, 2018 20:39:21 GMT
I am still not clear why having the ability to launch an Arm 16 Feral missile is so OP. In order to do so you lose an entire activation, therefore, it should be powerful. Given that we are a squishy faction and have very few casters with both a damage buff and threat extender I don't see it being over the top. Not to mention it is only on a single model.
As it stands, if you are running Kaya 3 or Kromac2 we don't out threaten a Gaspy 3 slayer list unless we hit a hunters mark first. That hunters mark is rough needing a 6 to hit. If you fail to hit you have just lost your chance to alpha as you then lose the Blackclad the next turn. If you hit one of 2 hunters marks you can only kill 1 or potentially 2 models if your opponent positioned poorly. I am just curious how we expect to fight this list without Bradigus and without some sort of caster independent automatic speed buff.
Also, great point about other factions having the option for hunters mark as well. Heck, if they can have static speed buffs and hunter's mark why cant we?
|
|