2 hours ago, Datskor said:

I do think   the change to re-animates may phush them over the top with re-generat   e       compare them with a two tray of  Deepwood or  Crossbowmen. Deepwood get two blue  dice  vs blue, red caping their dammage. The precise       is good and may compansate for the dice but the spesial by blighting is someting that i find stronger than shifting one altough less reliable. There is a one point difference.

- fire rune is stronger on deepwoods*

Now compare them to the two-tray crossbowmen with equal dice. The crossbows got protected one and a mortal strike range 1-3. Reanimates archers got blight generation and a ability to re-generate 1,5 average dammage. For the protection to be stronger they need to be attacked more than one time in one round. re-generate also works when they dont get attacked. Blight vs mortal 1-3 is debateble altough i feel blight has more diverse uses. crosbowmen is costed one higher then re-archers.

Add that they also got steadfast [dubt]

The maro figure upgrade is going to be strong with this reanimate archer buff.

Now thematicly i do agree that they shuld have the same regenerate-ability.

This is the same argument my gaming group has. My counter argument is that:

1. Regenerate sounds way better on paper. It's not often that I even get a full tray of Reanimates back during a game. In the battle report in the post above I got a total of 2 skeletons, and the unit was in combat for 7 rounds! The archers regenerated 0. On average my experience is that an archer unit probably is under attack fewer rounds in general. Also, enemy deepwood archers are likely to give the even 4 damage, which does not trigger regenerate, and if the standard 3x1 Crossbow with tempered steel gets the attack in, the Reanimate archers are dead. Also note that the crossbow has protected, which MIGHT do more than regenerate! If the archers become engaged, they are probably dead as well, but could perhaps get 2 regenerates in or something like that if they get hit by 2 or 6 damage. But the crossbows are still better in close combat. So the gain I expect from this adjustment is actually very limited, and the reason to have it is mostly thematic and to find ways to "lift" the faction widely instead of narrowly.

2. I think that you are undervalueing both Deepwood and Crossbow. The Depwood can get amazing at 2x2 with the Dispatch runner equipped, and Crossbow 3x1 with tempered steel and ranked discipline (and protected) just lays waste. Comparing that with the more expensive 2x2 Reanimates with combat ingenuity and a few extra skeletons raising from the (un)dead does not flash red to me.

My comparison of the 2x1 was deliberate. Its showing the base values of the units and everyone got this formation. There are are upgrade differences where latari have most possible upgrades and i have not controll over the differing buildpaths. I do like dispachrunner but it is a situasional upgrade, compare their unique upgrades Combat Inginuety is used but Hunter guile is not so much. The uniqe 3x1 formation is what making the crossbows deadly and is their spessialisation. Deepwoods is snipers and versitile with their upgrades. And reanimate archers are blight batteries. I dont see them underpreforming.

As for you first argument regenerate cupeld with blight is a strong combo as it would limit the potensial dammage and therfore be able to regenerate back. Their 6-tray cost five less then a similar size of spearmen but is ranged, risistant to dubt and reganerates? That seems strong.

Further more i did see a game where regenerate archers demolished deepwoods because of blight and «stronger dice».

I belve with the added ability to regenerate to they could/would winn most pure ranged engagements of equal points. And im not shure if they already do.

Put rannged 6-trays of the differing factions and i belive reanimates would come out on top.

The second argument seems like they are spessialised. Comparing ranged to crossbowmen is a bit like comparing heroes to Ravos or sige to Threshers where what they do is dammage and they are the best at it.

Reanimate Archers already have the supreme ranged dueling build with Raven Banner Bearer and Blight, so Regenerate is unlikely to change the dynamic any. I would say it would be quite unlikely in any given game to be relevant for the 2x1, and might be pretty decent for the 3x2 (or builds that have Maro adding trays). I say keep the change, revert if need be.

I would implement the fewest amont of changes until Waiquar is in a good place.

Im just saying that i don't think that the Archer unit is where Waiquar need to be helped as its one of there preforming units.

Mainly rearranged the format into having the first post contain "critical" and the second "optional". In the critical (main post) I've sort of reduced the number of fixes to keep it simple, and now it:

-Nolonger bans Ravos unique upgrades. Instead it incorporated the Insatiable hunger fix suggested by @Jukey and @Church14 and reduced the range of Fear incarnate.

-The Thresher nerf is untouched (struck the "semi-free" reroll ability).

-Nolonger contains fixes for Ardus. The Carrion Lancer "fix" (CAN blight engaged units in LoS) turned out to also "fix" him indirectly.

-Now contains a rewording of the Death Knight's defensive ability (it was driving me nuts) to protect from 1 of the 2 Ravos wounds (instead of 0).

-The Ankaur fixes are untouched. (His necro does only give wounds for the trays raised BEYOND the first. His champion CAN add trays to his unit)

-I removed everything for Daqan and put it into the Optional post. @Bhelliom has proven over 2 official tournaments that Rune golems work.

Link to the "Critical" post:

I was talking with @Parakitor about Spined Threshers and brainstormed an idea that makes some gameplay changes in the name of balance and theme.

First, we change the name of of the unit from Spined Thresher to Scuttling Horror. Next, we make the sideways shift mandatory, though I'm unsure whether to change the timing to before it activates or keep it after the command phase*. We also make a clause that says, "Whenever this unit performs a {shift} outside of terrain, it can only move sideways. We also change the white march modifier to a white shift modifier. Finally, we remove the reroll ability.

Next, we change the Scuttling Horror unique upgrade to Spined Thresher, add the reroll-if-panicked ability, and keep the stun. Cost would be 5 at minimum, but maybe more.

*Changing the timing would definitely make them more similar to Flesh Rippers than they are now, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. With a white shift modifier, I might even be persuaded to drop the pre-tool movement altogether.

42 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

I was talking with @Parakitor about Spined Threshers and brainstormed an idea that makes some gameplay changes in the name of balance and theme.

First, we change the name of of the unit from Spined Thresher to Scuttling Horror. Next, we make the sideways shift mandatory, though I'm unsure whether to change the timing to before it activates or keep it after the command phase*. We also make a clause that says, "Whenever this unit performs a {shift} outside of terrain, it can only move sideways. We also change the white march modifier to a white shift modifier. Finally, we remove the reroll ability.

Next, we change the Scuttling Horror unique upgrade to Spined Thresher, add the reroll-if-panicked ability, and keep the stun. Cost would be 5 at minimum, but maybe more.

*Changing the timing would definitely make them more similar to Flesh Rippers than they are now, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. With a white shift modifier, I might even be persuaded to drop the pre-tool movement altogether.

Interesting and creative to say the least Though I'm aiming for minimal "rewrite" (as hopefully is noticable, I'm only scratching or adding a few words) to minimize the risk of creating new unforseen unbalances.

But it seems we do agree that scratching the reroll is a suitable fix.

If you have more comments or ideas, just bring it on!

Ok, so I'm now pretty happy with the Optional post as well. Feel free to give feedback or ideas.

If you are "new" to this thread: The "Critical" house rules are in the first post of this thread, and the "Optional" house rules are in the second one.

Battlerep guess

Did not play with any of the fixes from this thread.

Took this picture right after dials had been set in turn 3.

The Objective wan Envoy, i.e. if the center 12 block reanimates moved to the visible objective token stright north of them, it would score 100p.

From the left.

• Outside left frame was the Graveyard protecting the 6 Tray reanimate flank.
• 6 tray Reanimates had Executioner and Blighted vexilium bearer.
• Flesh rippers had Ranked Discipline and dead sprint.
• Spined threshers with Scuttling Horror
• Kethra had Bonecaster
• 12 Tray reanimates had Lord Werebat Siege (brutal 1), Cursed signets and Triumphant cry. Last turn (2) had eliminated a 6 tray berserkers with the "surprise" turn charge and a follow up dispatch runner from the Death Knightss, and had used the Triumphant cry to reform against Kethra.
• Solo lancer
• Spined threshers with Scuttling Horror
• Death Knights with Dispatch runner (exhausted)
• Solo lancer

Now you can mostly see my dials ready for turn 3, but I changed the Death Knights to Melee attack. Uthuk has initiative.

I took the picture because it looked like a certain win and a dream situation I wanted to save for darker times. But the game ended with only a 7 point win for me at round 8.

Thought that it might be fun for anyone interested to guess what turned the tide so gruesome for the Legion?

Does the Spined Threshers unit on the right Scuttle to its right and get a flanking charge on your 12-tray Reanimates unit? I'm not sure that seals the game, though.

16 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

Does the Spined Threshers unit on the right Scuttle to its right and get a flanking charge on your 12-tray Reanimates unit? I'm not sure that seals the game, though.

Yes!

Turn 3 became a disaster. And I just could not stem the tide that it started.

Farthest to the right, the scuttling horrors flank charged the Reanimates, did 12 damage and could therefore close in "into" the unit. I had expected them to scuttle to it's left to avoid being flanked by the knights and outcharge them, so the Reanimate Kethra-charge fizzled and the Death Knights Rally + Dispatch (not attack as I first stated) did 1 wound to the Threshers due to the Reanimates low flank threat. The solo lancer had a long turn charge that did not land due to the closing in of the scuttling horrors.

In the center Kethra shot the solo lancer but it survives. And the Spined threshers that seemed to be on the scenic tour went straight ahead.

To the left, I thought that the Rippers would go on straight to intercept the big block of Reanimates to protect Kethra. Instead they made the Dead sprint with turn that squared them up face to face to the Execution squad, and then attacked. The Execution squad therefore had its turn charge fizzle.

Turn 4-6

Still on the left flank: The Rippers and Execution squad is a bloody mess but ends with one Ripper standing.

On the Right: The Death Knights, Solo Lancer AND Reanimate block fights the Threshers. The first Thresher block goes down turn 4 after it gets another flank attack on the Reanimate block. But it get's replaced by the second Thresher unit, the Scenic one that managed to get around the Reanimates. It gets the charge on the Death Knights and kills one tray with the attack and another with the "remove 1 tray" Morale card (JEEZ! THOSE GUYS ARE MENTAL!!!). Turn 6 the Threshers finishes the knights. The solo Lancer kills one of the Lancers (who had 4 wounds).

Kethra shoots the center solo lancer dead turn 4, charges the Reanimates late turn 5, and attacks early turn 6. But turn 6, the now 4 threat Reanimates hits back and gives her 2 wounds.

Turn 7

Kethra attacks the Reanimates who goes down to 2 trays (5 figures), but they hit back and rolls 2 hits which kills her (Yay!). The Reanimates reforms to face the Escort objective (worth 100 points!)

The Flesh rippers reforms to look at the Reanimates.

The Lancer and the Thresher dukes it out.

Turn 8

The Flesh Rippers catches the Reanimates before they can move. But it was a miscalculation! They did it with the Dead sprint and had a charge dialed in, FIZZLE!

The Lancer and the Thresher dukes it out.

Final score:

2 Trays of Reanimates with Triumphant cry and Cursed signets + 1 solo Lancer = 36

1 Flesh Ripper with Dead sprint and Ranked discipline + 1 Spined thresher with Scuttling horror = 29

Takeaway

Waiqar eliminated a 6 tray block of berserkers with upgrades turn 2 without them attacking even once. The reanimates was lined up so that Kethra could not escape a charge in any other way than charging the Reanimates herself. So she was almost certainly guaranteed to be dead turn 4 due to the 5 threat attack from the reanimates. The Reanimates were at the distance of 3 from the 100p objective. Without scuttling horror it was a dead certain win. Still it came down to 7 points.

That upgrade makes such a HUGE difference in what information to process when making decision. If your dials is one dimension, the enemies dials are the second, then that upgrade is the third. FOR 3 POINTS! And since it isn't like those are the only things you have to consider (for example how a move actually will pan out on the board, Runes, how the dials will interact, dice probabilities, the next step etc.), does making it even harder to process a whole extra dimension. Therefore I would suggest banning that card, it's just made for another game.

Regarding the reroll fix for Spined Threshers, as mentioned we did not use it, but that reroll gave at least 2 extra hits where one eliminated a Death Knight, DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR REROLL FOR THEIR ATTACK, and the other chewing half a tray of Reanimates (which is not a big deal). I really think all their other strengths just add up to too much and that the suggested fix really should have been there from the beginning. No other of the suggested fixes for other units would have even come in to play.

I've read that some have found Kethra to be extremely strong. We found her to be good but in line of the curve in this game.

1 hour ago, Maktorius said:

To   the left, I thought that the Rippers would go on straight to inter  cept the big block of Reanimates to protect Kethra.      I  ns  tead they made the Dead sprint with turn that squa   red  them up face to face to the Execution squad, and then attacked. The Execution squad therefore had its tu  rn char  ge fizz  le.

I didn't realize they had Dead Sprint. What they did is what I would have done in that situation.

Your situation with Kethra is the reason I have come to once again really appreciate Support Carrion Lancer on the 12-tray Reanimate block. If ranged units want to stay out of combat, let them, but they are rolling fewer dice from my blight. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to take Lord Werebat. How did his threat do in this game?

Also, major, MAJOR bummer that your Executioner block got paired up with the Flesh Rippers. I mean, he still works on them, but it's not as stellar as it would have been up against Spined Threshers or Kethra A'laak.

29 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

Your situation with Kethra is the reason I have come to once again really appreciate Support Carrion Lancer on the 12-tray Reanimate block. If ranged units want to stay out of combat, let them, but they are rolling fewer dice from my blight. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to take Lord Werebat. How did his threat do in this game?

Also, major, MAJOR bummer that your Executioner block got paired up with the Flesh Rippers. I mean, he still works on them, but it's not as stellar as it would have been up against Spined Threshers or Kethra A'laak.

This thread (se first post) is to a "large extent" about that the Lancer Support lancer should be able to blight engaged units. As is you are not likely to get more than 1-2 blight out per match, so 6 points for it is not convincing when compared to FL Thresher or Golem for a few points more. But that was not your question, sorry

Lord Werebat's Brutal is just what the 12 tray need against Uthuk. As you might have noticed, if you can't kill 1 thresher in each attack, you are in serious trouble. So 5 threat is immensly higher than 4 in my book In this game I unfortunately didn't get that matchup. But as I wrote I managed to get the "surprise" turn charge in (it might have even have been you that "revealed" that trick to me) against his berserker block. I got 2 hits but rerolled both and got 3 hits, i.e. 15 damaged. The DK's dispatch at init 7 netted another 10 which finished them of. Without Lord Werebat there would have been 1 tray standing, i.e. on extra thing to deal with, with the same dice roll.

Regarding the executioner: This is the 3rd or 4th time I've run it against Uthuk, and my opponent has managed to get the Flesh Ripper matchup against it EVERY time. Uthuk can make way lower bids for bids and the Rippers movement with Dead sprint is always enough to get them into position. This was the first time the Executioner didn't get sniped though as no accuracy was rolles until I was down to 1 rank.

1 hour ago, Maktorius said:

This thread (se first post) is to a "large extent" about that the Lancer Support lancer should be able to blight engaged units. As is you are not likely to get more than 1-2 blight out per match, so 6 points for it is not convincing when compared to FL Thresher or Golem for a few points more. But that was not your question, sorry

Heavy costing is pretty messed up in general. There's no way the Golem and Thresher should be so cheap, so it's clearly FFG's design that part of the cost come from the unit getting the slot at all, which means units NOT taking the upgrade cost way too much, and things like the Support Lancer get mysteriously hosed.

I may be alone here, but I like that Carrion Lancers can't blight engaged units. It makes me think about how best to use them. Sure, they're weaker, and there's no thematic reason they can't blight engaged units since Reanimate Archers already do that. I guess I'm happy either way.

48 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

I may be alone here, but I like that Carrion Lancers can't blight engaged units. It makes me think about how best to use them. Sure, they're weaker, and there's no thematic reason they can't blight engaged units since Reanimate Archers already do that. I guess I'm happy either way.

Had I designed it, I would have said you place 1 blight token on the target and on each unit touching that target. That means you usually won't blight enemies engaged with allies, but you have the option tactically available.

I remade the "fixed" version of Scuttling horror, phasing it to Before the Command Phase instead of After. Then they still have a superior flexebility, but at least they are not at 3 places at once during the Command phase. I also cut the stun ability that I believe is just too much gravy for 3 points.

I have shifted stuff between the "Critical" and "Optional" posts at the top of the thread to really have an as clean "Critical" as I can manage.

On 8/16/2018 at 11:47 PM, Budgernaut said:

Had I designed it, I would have said you place 1 blight token on the target and on each unit touching that target. That means you usually won't blight enemies engaged with allies, but you have the option tactically available.

That is a VERY good idea. I've had a little bit of doubt nagging in the back of my head about my fix, "what if it DOES break the game?". Yours fixes the thematical disconnect for me and it is more powerful than the original, but I feel CONFIDENT it would not break the game! Still, I don't feel that the Support Lancer (with your ability) would be as good as the FL golem and thresher, since the Reanimates would get a blight as well in melee with the attack + S.A. modifier. But closer than the original.

What about if the Lancer's (all versions) ability could target an engaged enemy, BUT only put on blight if it did not have any already? Then it would be impossible to lock down units with Lancers only. And since the Lancers blight after the archers, it will still be hard to lock down units with them. Thematically it could be explained as the disease (blight) spread by Lancers is a less potent one than the one Reanimate archers give.

Thoughts?

5 hours ago, Maktorius said:

What about if the Lancer's (all versions) ability could target an engaged en   emy, BUT only put on blight if it did not have any already? Then it would be impossible to lock down units with Lancers only. And since the Lancers blight  after the archers, it will still be hard to lock down units with them. Thematically it could be explain  ed as the disease (blight) spread by Lancers is a le  ss potent one than the one Reanimate archers give. 

Seems like a fair compromise, but I don't think it makes them better. I think putting a couple Lancers out to blight a unit multiple times is common, so giving that up takes a tool out of their toolbox while adding another.

4 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

Seems like a fair compromise, but I don't think it makes them better. I think putting a couple Lancers out to blight a unit multiple times is common, so giving that up takes a tool out of their toolbox while adding another.

I just realized I might not have explored this enough when proposing my fix; But what is the reason of the original nerf? My guess is that they tested playing the maximum of solo Lancers, which are 13 (195p). The game breaks down when the enemy fields an equal or less amounts of dice.

Then what number of dice can a susceptible army be expected to field? 1 hero with 2 dice (40p), 1 Deathstar with 2 dice (60p), 1 unit of archers with 2 dice (30p), 1 unit of cavalry with 3 dice (40p) and 1 unit of siege with 2 dice (30p). This equals 11 dice. Cursed signets goes a long way to screw this up, but that is not a good enough defence.

Now the question is whether your fix also suffers from this? I would say yes, because the game can still break down to a total standoff.

So to your point, which is very good; does the 1 blight limit, which cannot make the game break down, ACTUALLY improve anything upon the original?

Personally I seldom get more than 1 blight on an enemy, and the original Lancers' "not engaged" limitation is the culprit. From round 3 there are usually just no available legal targets, and against Uthuk there might not even be 1 during the whole game.

So for me, the 1 blight limit but no other limitation would be an improvement, I think.

But you describe that you are aware that there are players that manage to even use the Lancers for multi-blighting the same target.

So if we have any Waiqar players following this thread, what are your experiences and thoughts. Would the wording below improve YOUR effectiveness with Carrion lancers and Support Carrion Lancer?

"Choose an enemy unit at range 1-5 and in line of sight. If that unit does not have any blight tokens, it recieves 1 blight token."

I have tested some more with the Lancer's (and support lancer's) special ability changed to "Choose an enemy unit at range 1-5 and in line of sight. If that unit does not have any blight tokens, it recieves 1 blight token", i.e. allowing blighting on engaged units.

Thematically it could be explained as the disease (blight) spread by Lancers is a less potent one than that Reanimate archers give.

I think this fix is the sweet spot for the ability. It gets used more as it is way more reliable, and there is no risk of "too much blight". In short, much higher reliability and curbed extremities.

Updated the initial post with the printable cards.