To get a Little bit of life in this Forum, let's discuss a controversal unit. Uhtuk's Obscenes:

abilities:

Craving negates the main problem of a unit with movement: 1. Thanks to craving, Obscenes generally do at most 1 turn with only 1 movement, bevor they come to theyr duty: the infight battle.

Ferocity is the only almost defensiv ability among the units of Uthuk. To strike back, also if they retreat is a nice ability, looking at the basic attack of 4

my opinion:

I do like my fatties. You may place them clever to get them attacking an enemy VP on turn 1 or 2 or you let them save one of your own VP. Nobody likes to attack into Obscenes and and a singleton Riverwatch is not a real threat for them. Striking back with 4 dieces will cause more damage then a lot of attackers will do. And they have a big chance to cause a retreat (= enemy will move out of the VP, no backstrike).

I almost alway deploy them to occupy a proper VP or to attack an enemy VP. A combinatet attack of obscenes and a fleshripper brute will eliminate almost every enemy unit.

Playing Uthuk, I almost never leave home without at least one unit of our obese friends...

Craving does negate the limited movement. I feel the movement limits more at the deployment then in the game (if they were placed in the right spot).

Playing against Obscenes, they may be a good target for ranged attacks: a singleton retreat of your archers may be enough to get them out of range for theyr attack and they pay the full price for the bad movement.

I agree that their movement restriction isn't really so bad. Like you said, the movement is something to take into consideration during unit placement, but once you're playing, they rarely go more than one turn without being able to use Craving. Still, I'm sure it does happen sometimes where there is no enemy unit close enough.

I don't take them as often as I should. Usually I forget that they roll 4 dice! That's a pretty hefty attack and certainly warrants including one in your army. (Now that I think about it, I've run a lot of Infantry armies these days with tons of Viper Legion and Blood Harvesters, which may explain why I haven't recruited Obscenes very often).

I think Ferocity is great. As you pointed out, it's almost the closest thing the Obscene's have to a defensive ability. I say "almost the closest thing" because I feel that Immovable on the Chaos Lord is a legitimate defensive ability. It prevents movement and can even prevent damage in some circumstances. But I like Ferocity because it pushes the Uthuk toward that offensive role by adding more attacks rather than negating damage or retreats.

Unstoppable is an amazing lore card, but I think it does best when used with Obscenes. I'm glad there are two copies of it in the core lore deck. If I muster Obscenes, I always want to draw that card. The reason is because Obscenes, while big and fat, do not have any more health than any other unit. Their Ferocity ability only triggers when they retreat, so if the enemy rolls 3 swords against them, their ability doesn't activate and they're just dead. Having Unstoppable in hand means that you can count on your Obscene dealing some damage to an adjacent attacker, whether your Obscenes unit gets eliminated or forced to retreat. Well, there's still the chance you'll get stunned and can't counter anyway or that you'll get destroyed by a Riverwatch Rider you can't counter. I suppose that in those cases, you really hope you have Bone Spurs in hand with 6 lore to spare.

I think attacking Obscenes with ranged attacks is a valid way to take them out. You can use archers or casters to assault the Obscenes, and both of these units have the range necessary to stay outside of the Obscene's Craving range. There is also the Siege Golem, but it doesn't seem like many people use that. Oh, and I forgot about the Mountain Giant's Boulder Throw ability. So if you're really worried about Obscenes and your opponent is playing Uthuk Y'llan, you could try to bid for recruiting the Mountain Giant for some anti-Obscene tech, but that seems a bit overkill to counter one unit.

In my opinion, the best play to make against Obscenes is to surround them with a Riverwatch Rider on one side and something else on the other (whether it's a Citadel Guard, Rune Golem, or Roc Warrior). Attack first with the Riverwatch Rider because you know the Obscene won't be retreating or countering and hopefully you can deal some damage to the unit. Also, even if they play Bone Spurs, you're rolling 2 damage max, so if your Riverwatch Rider is at full health, it will still survive to give its Flanking bonus to the other unit and allow that unit to resolve retreats as damage. Next, attack with the other unit, rolling 4 or 5 dice, plus all retreats become damage. Obscene's usually don't survive rounds like that, and if they do, they are likely weak by that point and their attacks deal less damage.

I agree with everything you said. My personal experience with them is not particularly exciting. In theory they are a very useful unit, especially if appropriately placed to challenge the control of hot spots from the first turn. Consider, however, that in the Uthuk army the key deployment hex one/two hex away from the VP is typically occupied by the Chaos Lord. In practice, they tend to deliver less than I expect. The problem can of course be with my expectations. The don't find a place in my generic "all purpose" Uthuk army

chaos lord + doom bringer + flesh rippers x 2 + blood harvester* x 6 + 3 LP + command tent

* replace some blood harvesters with berserkers if wood hexes abound or are key positions

@budger: you are right, I wanted to write "only almost defensiv ability among the non-legendery Uthuk units"

I also agree with unstoppable only, that it is still stronger on a weak unit of harvesters. But sure, if not it's a great card for obscenes also. And yes, someone running an attack into Obscenes with Bone Spurs... ends quite ugly for the attacker.

Riverwatch is almost Daqan's best solution against every thing... an attack with Riverwatch and Roc-Warrior means 7 attack dices; once without Counter and once with -1dice counter... at least, Obscenes have still 3 attacks against flying Units left...

@g1ul10

Your list is good, playable for sure. I do not often deploy both legends, so I have almost ever a free slot for Obscenes.

@all: I know I wrote it in other threads: I think they made some errors designing Uthuk: there are so much units that are not on par with the rest: worst archers, worst casters and with Grotesques the worst elite unit in the game... so it's very hard to change army list's like if you play any other army...

@g1ul10

Your list is good, playable for sure. I do not often deploy both legends, so I have almost ever a free slot for Obscenes.

Me neither, to say the truth. But imagine you have to chose the army BEFORE the scenario card is revealed. This is a good exercice to see which units one considers "generally" useful, and not only useful in some circumstances. That's the point of the "all purpose". I'm curious to know what would be your choice.

That's an interesting, way of approaching it, g1ul10. In those terms, I feel Chaos Lord, Doombringer, Obscenes, and Flesh Ripper Brutes are the go-to units. If you include the max of those included with 1x core and 1x Warband of Scorn, you have 4 points left over. I'm not sure how I would build from there. I think I would either add one Viper Legion, for the ranged support, or drop one Flesh Ripper Brute for 2 Blood Sisters. I'd probably go with the Viper Legion. I'd set him up where he could hold a VP banner on my side of the field and harass enemy units from there while the other units go on full offense.

@g1ul10

Your list is good, playable for sure. I do not often deploy both legends, so I have almost ever a free slot for Obscenes.

Me neither, to say the truth. But imagine you have to chose the army BEFORE the scenario card is revealed. This is a good exercice to see which units one considers "generally" useful, and not only useful in some circumstances. That's the point of the "all purpose". I'm curious to know what would be your choice.

But deploy before would be still lot more random luck then this game contains anyway...

I think it would be miserable to play a game where you muster units first and then draw scenarios. That's for sure. But I think it's a good exercise in figuring out which units are better all around because those are the ones you would lean toward in such a situation.

As Garrett was saying.. It's a gedankenexperiment, I'm not suggesting to do it in real games.

I think it would be miserable to play a game where you muster units first and then draw scenarios. That's for sure. But I think it's a good exercise in figuring out which units are better all around because those are the ones you would lean toward in such a situation.

I don't agree. It just changes the value of the skills. If you dont have any idea of the board, all specialiced units lose theyr value. Why playing Berserks if you don't know if there are woods? Are Berserks bad because of that? No they are quite a powerhouse if they occupy an important wood-hex. If the board is full of Woods, I prefer to play archers over casters... that's one of the strenghts of archers, why I shouldnt consider? Obscenes have no Limitation for the movement of one if they are in the rights spot, why I shouldnt consider that? Demon Lord also is only usefull if you get it in melee-battle...

If you negate the knowledge of the board, you cut a big part of the tactical decision you have to do. Because just the board allows you to think about a valid tactic. If you cut this Information, you have not the Information which unit is better, but you know which unit less specialised...

you have not the Information which unit is better, but you know which unit less specialised...

I think "less specialized" is an important component of "better all around". @phalgast: If I understood well, your point is that the information of what unit is better "all around" is useless, because at the end your are playing a specific scenario. It is of course true that you are playing a specific scenario, but it is also true that a large part of the thinking around the game, at least for me, abstract from a specific scenario. I'm thinking to questions like: what are the synergies of the different units? How their traits and powers interact with the cards? Which unit is good to keep the banner? Which unit is good to contest it? But if you think this analysis is sterile, I suggest an alternative. Propose a specific combination of scenario cards that you repute interesting and let's see how the Obscenes fare in that specific case.

you have not the Information which unit is better, but you know which unit less specialised...

I think "less specialized" is an important component of "better all around". @phalgast: If I understood well, your point is that the information of what unit is better "all around" is useless, because at the end your are playing a specific scenario. It is of course true that you are playing a specific scenario, but it is also true that a large part of the thinking around the game, at least for me, abstract from a specific scenario. I'm thinking to questions like: what are the synergies of the different units? How their traits and powers interact with the cards? Which unit is good to keep the banner? Which unit is good to contest it? But if you think this analysis is sterile, I suggest an alternative. Propose a specific combination of scenario cards that you repute interesting and let's see how the Obscenes fare in that specific case.

Why do you want to negate an Information that you have got? It makes no sense to do that... you make only units with low movement worse then they are.

Take the example of the berzerks: They are strong in Woods. If there are no woods, you won't deploy them. BUT YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE WOODS! You make a good unit bad without any reason.

Same with obscenes. Why should you ignore an important Information that you've got? You make them weaker then they are... because you've got that Information.

Same with the Demon Lord: He has movement 1, I only deploy him knowing the battlefield. Why do you want to rate him if you don't know the battlefield? In the right spot he is very strong. Without any reason you want to rate him very bad, only because you want to rate him without knowing the battlefield.

the opposite is the doombringer: He would be lots stronger thanks to his movement. But why do you want to rate him without knowing if you really Need his movement?

> It makes really no sense to rate units with just half of the Information. It says neither which unit is better allround. It would be the same if you say: let's rate the Units ignoring theyr attack skill or ignoring theyr abilities... it's just nonsense...!

> It makes really no sense to rate units with just half of the Information. It says neither which unit is better allround . It would be the same if you say: let's rate the Units ignoring theyr attack skill or ignoring theyr abilities... it's just nonsense...!

It says exactly which unit is better "all around." "All around" means "all-purpose," "in general," "versatile," "overall," "in most situations," or "without respect to specific scenarios." Saying a unit is better "all around" is not saying it is hands-down the best unit to ever pick in any game. The term is explicitly asking which one is better in the wider array of circumstances. It is directly contrasted to ranking units with specific scenarios in mind.

Neither general power nor special situations should be used alone to rank a unit; both should be considered. I think we can agree on that, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing which ones are better without regard for specific situations and which ones are better with regard to specific situations. Both aspects are important when discussing the utility of a unit.

Asking yourself which ones you would take if you had no prior knowledge about a scenario does open your eyes to which ones are more versatile and have use in more varied situations. Yes, it does exclude specific units, but one could argue that the ability to adapt to various situations or to just be useful in various situations is a good characteristic that increases the value of a unit. If a unit has amazing abilities and is taken in nearly every scenario, that is (in my opinion) the definition of a good unit.

Take Rune Golems, for example. Both Stunning Blow and Immovable 1 are extremely powerful abilities. They're so good that Rune Golems can be used in nearly every scenario to great effect.

Contrast that with the Berserkers. As you said, they can be amazing in forest hexes, but if there are fewer forest hexes they lose some of their utility. Berserkers have a specific niche utility. Therefore, you won't see them in every scenario. The fact that you won't see them as often makes them a less powerful unit. Just the fact that you will see them less often means they aren't as powerful as the Rune Golems.

I play against Daqan instead of Waiqar a lot, and since Riverwatch and Yeoman completely destroy Obscene, never really get to see them in action (plus they always seem to roll pierce every time its like wtf?)

Riverwatch Riders OP. Just sayin.

Yeoman archers do not more damage to Obscene than to any other unit. Ok, Riverwatch counter Ferocity, but without support they neither take out a unit of Obscenes by themselves. You are right that Obscenes are a priority target, but that says that they are a real threat that the enemy wants to take out asap, and that underlines that they are a good unit. I think you should give them a chance from time to time...

But Yeoman are good where there is separation, and the slowness of the Obscenses makes them a easy target.

But Yeoman are good where there is separation, and the slowness of the Obscenses makes them a easy target.

Yes, but except for the Flesh Ripper Brutes and Doombringer, the Yeoman Archers can keep any Uthuk unit at range. I agree that they're good, but I don't think they counter the Obscenes any harder than they counter other Uthuk units. But with that combat value of 4, there is no more important target for the Yeoman Archers than the Obscenes.