Or the Shael Han Keeper which gives it to the Legionnaires, or the Wrath which have it built in. But in most respects I agree, but since the all of the Shael han infantry is a hard counter to the Ashmen, it needed to be pointed outOriginally Posted by CMON Mr. Black
balance
To be fair many game systems have had certain factions counter other factions in a rock paper scissors fashion and still have game balance between said factions. If you wan't perfect balance, then you might as well play a "one faction game" with the exact type and number of troops. Sounds boring to me.
Could you please give me an example that works?
Also, there is a difference between soft counters and hard counters.
A soft counter is taking a ranged army against a melee army. Or taking an ambush army against a ranged army. This is not nescessary a single faction, as mostly there are multiple factions that can pull it off easily. And most of the time, it also gives you a weakness.
A hard counter is a faction that has a widespread bonus against your faction, but is still viable against others. Clear Example from 40k: Grey Knights vs Daemons. Facing a hard counter isn't fun and is perceived as unfair.
No need to go for single faction, but every models should be able to defend against each attack type. Ashmen are the only models that completely shut down when faced with magic. As Shael Han has a lot of magic (Three models don't have a magic attack, but two of them can get it) Ashmen become a bad choice against them.
Back to topic.
Mainly, there is no tradeoff when taking magic against the Ashmen, as they can't generate backlash, and are especially weak to it.
I still think that having 4x parry is not that good, and having 4x dodge is better, because there isn't an ability that ignores all these dodges, and most models ingore only 1 of these dodges, meaning you still have 3 available.
I can slowly see the merits of the ashmen, but I still think they got the short stick compared to most infantry.
Lastly, Ace is bad. It's an ability that requires the opponent to 1) Not use magic. 2) Use at least 2 dice. 3) Stand in a 1-on-1 engagement. Then you have got a 16% chance to pull it off. Which is the same as 2 counterattacks and not dying.
Just a quick question, when a ashmen is 1v1 and gets its reaction attack, does it benefit from duelist?
Yes, Ace (though why you call is Ace is a mystery to me) is situational, and yes it will not happen often, though my numbers say that it will trigger 32% of the time on a 2 die attack against the Ashmen. But Ashmen are solid without Ace, all Ace does is give opponents rank 2 infantry a pause when they consider engaging the Ashmen. It is a slight bump to the Ashmen, which makes them slightly better with it then without it. It is not their defining ability - that would be duelist.
And as far as I can tell, yes, Duelist would work with counter attack, when engaged 1x1
Yes an Ashmen Swordsman will still benefit from Duelist when his [Reaction] is triggered.
In regards to AWC - 1. Whether an attack is Magic or not makes no difference in triggering this ability. If I am engaged 1v1 with an Ashmen Swordsman and I kill him with a Magic attack, his AWC will trigger. 2. I can kill an Ashmen Swordsman with a one die attack, if we are 1v1 AWC will trigger. 3. There are a lot of times when I don't have the choice but to stand with an Ashmen Swordsman 1v1. If my opponent engages my front line with Ashmen, I cannot disengage and engage another Ashmen. This is even harder to control with the Hakars training. Ashmen Swordsman excel at controlling a line and fading away from it.
AWC has caused me a ton of grief in playtest and is in opinion one of the more annoying aspects of these guys, interrupting my game plan by ruining my positioning, taking key models and really causing a serious bit of disruption just when I don't need it.
OK, now I need a better explanation
1) Magic changes all Parry on a card to Strike. Since the card has no parry how can Reactivate (Parry) ever occur vs a magic attack
2) AWC only triggers of the Swordsman Dies, so how can it trigger on a 1 die attack, since obviously the one die had to have rolled a strike or an overpower
I agree with 3
Thanks for verifying that Duelist works on reactions
Currently I am in error as I have just looked at the version of the rules that are on the WoK site for you guys. Right now we are using a addendum to Magic attacks that allows [Reaction] abilities to trigger. We have a couple of updates planned for the coming weeks, I'll verify which rules version is going up and do my best to get it up with the next update.
Derek, thanks for your comments on this stuff. While I still have some concerns, it is - ironically perhaps - reassuring to know that there are still rules we don't yet know about. I kind of suspected that some of the things in the current cards would start to make more sense once we saw the new version rules, and this definitely does.
(I'm still not convinced that Ashmen are good enough, but I'm willing at this point to be convinced!)
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
That changes things. (A little bit, but it does)
I will refrain from commenting/testing until additional rules are posted.
Heres another question, if 2 ashmen where in same group activation, once goes into melee 1v1 and benefits from duelist, if the second ashmen went b2b with the attacking ashman and used the assist action. Does the actacking ashman still benefit from duelist?
Hey James,
No it would not. The definition of Duelist reads:
Duelist: When this model is engaged with onlyone enemy model, and no other friendly model is engaging the same model, itgains OffensiveMastery.This ability is ignored if an assist action is used on the model with Duelist.
The last sentence specifically states the ability is ignored if an assist action is used on the model with Duelist.
Cards have been updated! Check out the Kickstarter update found here:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s/posts/714040
Does the Longhorn's Clear a Path action work like Knockback(3), e.g. would it cause a pinball attack if the models that get knocked away hit other models?
No, if an ability causes an effect it is noted in it's definition.
No, it specifically does not cause Knockback for this very reason.
I'll be having a better look later tonight but first impressions are fairly positive.
Ashmen - are a bit better, the Hakar's Inspire is IMO still trying to send them in an odd direction, but at least it's a substantial benefit now. Also combines well with AWC so there's a real risk to engaging the Ashmen Swordsmen. Giving your opponent hard choices is what wins games, after all! (That and having my dice luck ...
Pelegarth - not a change as such but the clarification to Shield Bash is a shame. Even with the Howl's Inspire they're just not that good offensively. It was the two attacks (that I wrongly thought they had!) that made them great. As is, they're reasonably tough to kill, not terribly impressive offensively, and have a nice utility slamback action.
Overall they're looking OK. Not great maybe but at the very least balanced within the faction so there's a reason to take both.
Greathorn - ZOMG. This guy was already amazing and you made him better?! Now seriously competes with the Blood Engine for best monster. I was actually joking before when I said he should have Sundering and you give him TWO hit-enhancers, AND more melee dice, AND a hit-enhancer on his Immolate spell. Just awesome. Still on the fragile side, but that's fine when he's as killy as this.
The great horn is an impressive looking model but I keep finding myself wanting to use either Bloodchild for ranged domination as his speed size and buff aura are really compelling as is the ability to hit extra targets.
I also find my self drawn to the longhorn/rathor combination as the Rathors aura combined with smart use of the longhorns clear a path action can really setup a devastating activation for appropriately placed ashmen while also assassinating a key opponent.
The great horn just seems to be delightfully Killy.
Actually you may want to read his Explosive Conflagration again, it actually got balanced. Before against 1 target you got 1 Die, Against 2 targets you got a 2 Die attack against each target, and if there were 3 targets you got a 3 Die attack against each target. Now you get 1 Die, + 1 to 3 more dice (so for 3 targets you would get 4 dice) that have to be split among the targets, so basically you will get 1 2 Die attack, and 1 or 2; 1 Die attacks. Which kind of makes sense, since 9 dice were pretty brutal, and now even 4 dice with Sundering and Unrelenting will still be pretty brutal
Oh. Huh. Yeah, misread that. So it's better against a single target a d progressively a bit worse against more. But still very good really. Thanks for the catch.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks