2 hours ago, Jukey said:

Lost 5 lancers to obcasium in a game getting suicide charged by DK 2x1. I really like the condition, but it's certainly in the 'too strong' area of power cards. I hope it's an errata, but if not I'll just resort to waiqar msu builds to work around it.

You lost 5 Lancers only to O's Gauntlet? So thats 15 wounds. He would have to have charged turn 1, and then had 2 blue runes showing on 7 of the 8 turns. I'd say that game came down to extreme measures, considering Death Knights can only charge 4 straight as their max speed. Which means both units would have to have been deployed across from eachother and the Carrion Lancers moved atleast march 2 into a straight line path of the DKs before Init 7 ( pretty sure thats the DKs 3 march) That, or wounds came from some other source to augment Death's Grasp.

I'm just not seeing the suicide 2x1 do this in any of my games. Most of my games with DKs i see they get blown off the table by atleast 3/4 trays before they get a charge off. Ive been forced to hold them back 2-3 turns so my slow reanimates can pressure enough to let the DKs do their jobs, thus relegating O's gauntlet to only having 5-6 turns to work.

When I see a 2x1 of anything lined up to do a suicide plunge, i shoot it off the table for being so small. You don't have to move your forces forward on every turn. Late initiative shifts can be quite good on the first turn or two as they let you react to what your opponent is doing.

Ok so there was 6 damage from the DK attack as well. Still excessive for 5 points

So 13 wounds from Death's Grasp. Still requires double blue runes on 5 of the 8 turns. Out of curiosity, after the CL killed you DKs, did they do anything else, or sulk off to a corner and die? By my count, they were more than likely still had 4 trays on turn 3 and 4, and still 3 trays on turn 5. That's still alot of worm muscle to get work done.

Yes, Deaths Grasp is a strong ability, but it takes ALL GAME to do its work. The unit with the condition can still be an active participant in the game, can still accrue points for their side.

They knocked out a 2x1 of archers and engaged the rear of a slurm team on the last turn, so yes, they still did stuff. Maybe obcasium is to encourage more small unit infantry play, but it still seems underpriced for its power. I've only played it 3 times so I'll try it more, we'll see if it continues to wreak havoc or not.

While I don't have direct experience with O's Gauntlet yet.

It feels that with a general round or two delay before being applied, as well as the random stable rune damage, it doesn't feel that it is overpowered. My opponents may feel differently though.

It is most effective against high defense targets, as it feels like a lot of damage is being done. Effectively that's true. In reality, there will be just as many situations where it isn't very effective as when it is.

Thinking a little harder about O'gauntlet, it can be countered pretty easily with a mistland sabatuer, and should start seeing less giant blocks of horsemen when facing it. It would be nice to see more infantry used, and I'll be ok with the gauntlet as it is if that's what it does to the meta.

I wonder too if they'll introduce a healer type unit to the game that can skill action conditions off. First we'll have to wait for the other factions to get conditions...

6 hours ago, Jukey said:

Thinking a little harder about O'gauntlet, it can be countered pretty easily with a mistland sabatuer, and should start seeing less giant blocks of horsemen when facing it. It would be nice to see more infantry used, and I'll be ok with the gauntlet as it is if that's what it does to the meta.

I wonder too if they'll introduce a healer type unit to the game that can skill action conditions off. First we'll have to wait for the other factions to get conditions...

Glad waiqur have a direct counter ?...

You can only have 1 condition, unless I've read badly? So maybe some beneficial conditions will surface? Doesn't look like it for next round of humans though.

No you just cant have dupe conditions you can totally have multiple different conditions.

Though a condition that says "The first (stable) wounds you suffer each round are ignored" would basically completely negate OG lol

On that note i am just waiting for a proper "support" unit to appear somewhere. Healing or "preventive healing" (see condition above) would be interesting. Waiqar sorta have this with Maro.

1 minute ago, Vineheart01 said:

No you just cant have dupe conditions you can totally have multiple different conditions.

Though a condition that says "The first (stable) wounds you suffer each round are ignored" would basically completely negate OG lol

On that note i am just waiting for a proper "support" unit to appear somewhere. Healing or "preventive healing" (see condition above) would be interesting. Waiqar sorta have this with Maro.

That condition would be very bad design (direct counter generally is). It would also be even more book keeping, or just tokens I guess.

Tokens would work for that. Spent the token when a wound would be assigned and remove both.

19 hours ago, rebellightworks said:

So 13 wounds from Death's Grasp. Still requires double blue runes on 5 of the 8 turns. Out of curiosity, after the CL killed you DKs, did they do anything else, or sulk off to a corner and die? By my count, they were more than likely still had 4 trays on turn 3 and 4, and still 3 trays on turn 5. That's still alot of worm muscle to get work done.

Yes, Deaths Grasp is a strong ability, but it takes ALL GAME to do its work. The unit with the condition can still be an active participant in the game, can still accrue points for their side.

I was the one running that suicide DK unit against Jukey. He had deployed them on a flank because I had set up an rough Slurm Team 6, 2X 2x1 archer, and Ardus formation in the middle. I got to deploy my DK late and across from them.

I derped and didn’t try to charge but ran into his Slurm Team on turn one. Turn 2 I attacked and killed one lancer and applied the condition. They smoked the Death Knights in a shot (-1 mortal strike doesn’t do jack when they take 15 Damage). Because of them being on the flank, the terrain and my archers running away near terrain, he didn’t get to hit my back archers until turn 6. By then, he had a 3x1 and lost rerolls. He still one-shorted them, because Slurm Team 6 is gross.

I think all told it was 11 wounds over 7 turns. I think my 2nd archers managed to pop one more wound on them. So my forces inflicted 4 wounds, the condition 11. The 78 point unit killed a 33 and a 24. So 57 points scored by CLs and CLs lost 53. But those 53 points killed were almost entirely due to one attack from a unit that could have been only 29 points (rank discipline wasn’t really needed).

1 minute ago, Church14 said:

I was the one running that suicide DK unit against Jukey. He had deployed them on a flank because I had set up an rough Slurm Team 6, 2X 2x1 archer, and Ardus formation in the middle. I got to deploy my DK late and across from them.

I derped and didn’t try to charge but ran into his Slurm Team on turn one. Turn 2 I attacked and killed one lancer and applied the condition. They smoked the Death Knights in a shot (-1 mortal strike doesn’t do jack when they take 15 Damage). Because of them being on the flank, the terrain and my archers running away near terrain, he didn’t get to hit my back archers until turn 6. By then, he had a 3x1 and lost rerolls. He still one-shorted them, because Slurm Team 6 is gross.

I think all told it was 11 wounds over 7 turns. I think my 2nd archers managed to pop one more wound on them. So my forces inflicted 4 wounds, the condition 11. The 78 point unit killed a 33 and a 24. So 57 points scored by CLs and CLs lost 53. But those 53 points killed were almost entirely due to one attack from a unit that could have been only 29 points (rank discipline wasn’t really needed).

Thabks for the writeup from the other side! More info is almost always better.

My point is still the same. Its also not surprising to me how the total number of wpunds inflicted by Death's Grasp keeps diminishing. This is not an indictment of the players, but rather of how easy these things are to exaggerrate.

26 minutes ago, rebellightworks said:

Thabks for the writeup from the other side! More info is almost always better.

My point is still the same. Its also not surprising to me how the total number of wpunds inflicted by Death's Grasp keeps diminishing. This is not an indictment of the players, but rather of how easy these things are to exaggerrate.

I’m uncertain if my archer did a last wound or not. So 11 or 12, which is a reasonable average number of wounds to inflict from the gantlet. The problem from a player point of view is that once it is inflicted, you cannot do anything about it and it is super easy to inflict it. So it doesn’t feel that fun to face.

It's very frustrating when a tiny unit puts a countdown clock on your heavy hitting unit. But I learned my lesson in that battle. Don't leave a big unit alone without blockers nearby. intercepting the small death knights with a single siege unit or a small block will stall them out long enough to either kill them or reduce the long term effect of OG.

OK to sum up;

RAW: Death Grasp is OP.

RAI: FFG need to FAQ.

The Real World: Its easier said then done, and 8 turns limits its over the top abuse.

Truth: Screw the summary and lets beat this horse some more.

2 hours ago, SlaveOne said:

OK to sum up;

RAW: Death Grasp is OP.

RAI: FFG need to FAQ.

The Real World: Its easier said then done, and 8 turns limits its over the top abuse.

Truth: Screw the summary and lets beat this horse some more.

I've been wondering what RAW was for a while, now you added RAI, so I have to ask. What do these acronym's mean?

1 hour ago, Curlycross said:

I've been wondering what RAW was for a while, now you added RAI, so I have to ask. What do these acronym's mean?

Rules As Written

Rules As Interpreted/implied? (This one I am new too actually, but one can infer from the former)

1 hour ago, Curlycross said:

I've been wondering what RAW was for a while, now you added RAI, so I have to ask. What do these acronym's mean?

Rules as Written (what the words say)

Rules as Intended (what the person desperately wants the words to say)

Yea those terms come up more with Table Top RPG's like DnD, where interpretation is viable and malleable since the game intentionally lends it self to that.

Wargaming, especially competitive wargaming, not so much. Since our ilk need hard fast confirmations of the rules lest the world be spun off its axis and hurled into the void of despair.

13 minutes ago, SlaveOne said:

Yea those terms come up more with Table Top RPG's like DnD, where interpretation is viable and malleable since the game intentionally lends it self to that.

Wargaming, especially competitive wargaming, not so much. Since our ilk need hard fast confirmations of the rules lest the world be spun off its axis and hurled into the void of despair.

Really?

In my experience, it comes up a lot in wargaming. In fact, particularly in wargaming, where a match can be competitive, and the intent vs the letter is relevant.

I confess, I haven't touched a tabletop RPG in years, but I never heard the phrase in any of the games I played over the years. Intent vs letter seems pretty irrelevant in a wholly non-competitive setting, but of course, half the time when the rules didn't jive with what we wanted to do we just... did it anyway.

1 minute ago, Tvayumat said:

Really?

In my experience, it comes up a lot in wargaming. In fact, particularly in wargaming, where a match can be competitive, and the intent vs the letter is relevant.

I confess, I haven't touched a tabletop RPG in years, but I never heard the phrase in any of the games I played over the years. Intent vs letter seems pretty irrelevant in a wholly non-competitive setting, but of course, half the time when the rules didn't jive with what we wanted to do we just... did it anyway.

You comment is very revealing

But yea RAI, in wargaming is more as you said, which can be chalked to "desperate attempts".

In RPGs however, RAI is almost required and RAW typically can fall into "Rule Lawyering", which is taboo in some circles. In RPGs a good DM does their best to set expectations prior to campaigns and such. However not everything can be foreseen and much time can be spent deliberating when a bump occurs.

What's the rule for who determines which figure suffers the wounds? Could you force someone to lose a figure upgrade if they are down to one rank?

Someone more qualified may come along and correct me, but off the top of my head, i believe the player who applied the condition would get to choose, and would be able to choose any model in that single rank unit.

7 minutes ago, Xquer said:

What's the rule for who determines which figure suffers the wounds? Could you force someone to lose a figure upgrade if they are down to one rank?

RRG Page 9, RR-22.1 - When a unit suffers damage, the attacker - or the unit's opponent when the damage is not caused by an attack - assigns damage to one figure at a time until all of the damage has been assigned.

Yes, you can.

Interesting to note that, if one wanted to be super technical, Mortal Strikes are explicitly covered by this, while raw wounds are not.

However, there is literally no other mechanism in the game to decide how a wound WOULD be suffered so....

Yeah, the attacker/other player always picks the target.