Using the original Flayed Men in the context of a Bolton Army - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: Using the original Flayed Men in the context of a Bolton Army

  1. #41

    Default

    What you are talking a out is allies and allies function very differently than neutral Merc style units.
    Grey joys absolutely can and should have a house. Unfortunately I feel that the Bolton's took the design space that should have been theirs.

  2. #42

    Default

    I don't get it. I look at Bolton's and still see a very viable base for a neutral army. I really don't get this need for the flayed men. They are still solid on the charge and so much better at the post charge than every other cav.
    Blackguard are nasty and tough to unseat once they take an objective and the stupid cutthroats are cheap. I mean what is wrong with that?
    They also have amazing access to ncus that everyone takes so they must be good. I mean what is the issue.
    Problem I am seeing is min maxing and most armies starting to be 50 percent neutral and minimal unit count of the toughest unit of the house. This is a nightmare and makes for a very boring gaming experience.

  3. #43

    Default

    Eh i mainly wanted to spark a discussion about house bolton and how the changes made solely "because they are neutrals" sucked from my perspective. Imho in light of the past years, they should not have given heavy cavalry (barded or not) to the neutrals.

    The root of the problem is how neutrals are recruited by other factions. The feeling (speculative) is that there is a hidden tax built into the neutral faction units. The issue is far more obvious when you play as neutral only. As stated previously...the option to recruit mercenaries is very thematic for Asoiaf, so i think it's great, but the cost for doing so should not penalize players who use the neutral faction itself.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakwolf View Post
    Eh i mainly wanted to spark a discussion about house bolton and how the changes made solely "because they are neutrals" sucked from my perspective. Imho in light of the past years, they should not have given heavy cavalry (barded or not) to the neutrals.

    The root of the problem is how neutrals are recruited by other factions. The feeling (speculative) is that there is a hidden tax built into the neutral faction units. The issue is far more obvious when you play as neutral only. As stated previously...the option to recruit mercenaries is very thematic for Asoiaf, so i think it's great, but the cost for doing so should not penalize players who use the neutral faction itself.
    Yeah, though part of the problem is if every neutral unit costs, say, 1 point more than it would if it were in-faction, then in a merc army, running lots of troops becomes the main option, just the spammiest playstyle possible.

    Perhaps you could re-cost the neutral units, but then make it so that if you run *any* neutral units and you're not a neutral player you, pay a 1-point surcharge (total, not per unit). That way there'd still be this obstacle to running them in non-Neutral armies, but it would create a sort of economy of scale on running a lot of them.

  5. #45

    Default

    I agree that an additional cost to field neutrals in a non-neutral army would have been the best route. It could have been a blanket rule in the book and been easily done. Think of it as paying to hire/lure the neutral to your side or what have you.

    I am wondering if they never intended the Neutrals to be a viable faction. Obviously they gave them what they needed to be one, but this could have been “just for fun” and add some variety to the early days when it would have otherwise only been Stark and Lannister. This could explain their approach to the Faction.

    Supposedly it was mentioned somewhere that there would be 9 Factions. If we don’t count Neutrals, we have room for Martell, Greyjoy, and Whitewalkers. If we do count Neutral, then one of them has to go... Which is what got me wondering as to how viable a true neutral force was even intended to be...

    All that being said, I dont really see an issue with all neutral armies at the moment. They definitely have more options than they used to, which is what kept me from trying it initially.
    House - Ravenhurst
    Sigil - Black raven on a copper field, clutching paintbrushes
    Words - “We do not Highlight”

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlxRaven View Post
    Supposedly it was mentioned somewhere that there would be 9 Factions. If we don’t count Neutrals, we have room for Martell, Greyjoy, and Whitewalkers. If we do count Neutral, then one of them has to go... Which is what got me wondering as to how viable a true neutral force was even intended to be...
    Tyrell might have been its own faction at one point.

  7. #47

    Default

    That 1pt tax seems pretty "on point" to me for most neutrals...we can even see that they are putting mecanism to "circumvent" that tax with stormcrows's rule (-1 cost for attachments). They should have made it an official thing as suggested above.

    As for a neutral-only army...

    Bastard Girls could be fine as a Bolton faction unit at 6pts
    Blackguards would also be fine at 5pts (Baratheon Wardens are very similar) simply due to the fact that neutrals don't have cercei or the lannister deck...or leave them at 6pts with vicious.
    Current version Flayed Men? yech...not touching this with a pole, but 8pt is the most i'd pay for one unit. But honestly i'd have kept that 10pt original card...and put a 2pt tax on it for non-neutrals
    Cutthroats, however (perhaps a relic from the fact they are the first ever neutral released), are fine at 5pts.
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 02-20-2020 at 07:44 PM.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlxRaven View Post
    Supposedly it was mentioned somewhere that there would be 9 Factions. If we don’t count Neutrals, we have room for Martell, Greyjoy, and Whitewalkers. If we do count Neutral, then one of them has to go... Which is what got me wondering as to how viable a true neutral force was even intended to be...
    I believe Schinell mentioned 7 factions total, not 9, but I'm not sure if Neutrals count. If we're not counting Neutrals then I suspect that the Greyjoys are the 7th faction to complete the War of the Five Kings period that the game is based upon. From their last CMON Expo video discussion I remember the creators mentioning that the game has been successful enough that they will complete all 7 factions. For Martell and The Others there isn't enough material after 5 books to create a faction for them. A Martell army hasn't been displayed yet, neither have the Arryns. Winds of Winter needs to be released so that these factions can hopefully be realized into a further expansion for the game after Greyjoys get released.

  9. #49

    Default

    Some points of misinformation here. Specifically two points I keep seeing mentioned that are just flat not correct, and have been corrected by the creators numerous times, but still keep being spread:

    1. The game is not based on a specific period. There is no "War of the Five Kings" time line. The only time line specific event is the death of King Robert. That's it.

    2. They never said it was limited to X Number of factions. They had they had nine initially planned. Not that there were nine total. They even went so far as during the last Expo to specifically say that saying there were X factions was incorrect.

  10. #50

    Default

    It is logical too...the game will go where it can carry itself. If they make good money from it (or think they can make more) we'll see more material.

    I do remember the "roadmap" of 9 factions being talked about, although we can wonder if the Neutrals were part of that count.

    For all we know they could make a 2.0 after that roadmap, and start producing "spearmen" for all factions...that'd explain why there's no spearmen lol.

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliser Thorne View Post
    Some points of misinformation here. Specifically two points I keep seeing mentioned that are just flat not correct, and have been corrected by the creators numerous times, but still keep being spread:

    1. The game is not based on a specific period. There is no "War of the Five Kings" time line. The only time line specific event is the death of King Robert. That's it.

    2. They never said it was limited to X Number of factions. They had they had nine initially planned. Not that there were nine total. They even went so far as during the last Expo to specifically say that saying there were X factions was incorrect.
    Sorry but I'm going by their Expo conference they had when introducing the Baratheons and Targaryens. If I remember correctly 7 factions as the number being tossed around, I don't remember 9 getting mentioned but I could be wrong, doesn't mean they're limiting themselves to 7 or 9. It was that the game became successful enough to guarantee at least 7. The period doesn't have to stay only limited to War of Five Kings either and never said so but that's obviously the period that they're in and really the only period that they can base factions off of. The last detailed book battle if I remember correctly was Free Folk vs Night's Watch at the wall. Also the Greyjoy fleet mentioned in passing messing with the Tyrells and then Dragon Stone. Martells have done nothing militarily, nor the Arryns, and we know nothing of the Others besides raiding the Free Folk.

    Now the next two major battles where A Dance of Dragons left off as a cliff hanger is Winterfell: Boltons vs Stannis, and Slaver's Bay: Danaerys vs slavers with Victarion Greyjoy's fleet on arrival. So once again to go beyond the War of the Five Kings you need the book material from Winds of Winter. As of right now that's the only period there is without going before Robert's death. A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons is only setting up the 2nd half of the Song of Ice and Fire.
    Last edited by sacrilege83; 02-23-2020 at 01:02 AM.

  12. #52

    Default

    I used the Flayed Men for the first time since the 1.5.1 nerfing, I still think they are worth the 9 points, they may not have the power output that they had before but they are definately hard to shift, played a Bolton army against a NW army, and the although I lost the FM were my last unit standing and with still 3 Cavalry units on the tray..

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sacrilege83 View Post
    Sorry but I'm going by their Expo conference they had when introducing the Baratheons and Targaryens. If I remember correctly 7 factions as the number being tossed around, I don't remember 9 getting mentioned but I could be wrong, doesn't mean they're limiting themselves to 7 or 9.
    There is currently 7 factions available to play but Shinnal has talked about in a recentish podcast that back in the kickstarter days (2017?) they had 9 factions planned at that time. By now, they likely have more than that planned, but the two most likely to be of that original 9 is Martel and Greyjoy, which is why we think those two will be next.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->