Weather rework / agile units

+
Weather rework / agile units

Now that weather has been reworked to the point that it largely does not obliterate all units on a single row I think it would be wise for us to start scaling back how many units are agile; which is too many.
 
Probably all those with a trio ability. Trio and agility don't really mix well thematically. So that would hit NR and a bit monsters.
 
LDiCesare;n9330641 said:
Probably all those with a trio ability. Trio and agility don't really mix well thematically. So that would hit NR and a bit monsters.

why? sometimes i don't want to trigger the trio of WHR and make them vulnerable to igni. the same applies to reaver hunters
i also don't care about the trio of commandos, and a unit that comes out of the deck not being agile is quite silly considering they will come to the row where the previous unit was played.
 
RickMelethron;n9330741 said:
why? sometimes i don't want to trigger the trio of WHR and make them vulnerable to igni. the same applies to reaver hunters
i also don't care about the trio of commandos, and a unit that comes out of the deck not being agile is quite silly considering they will come to the row where the previous unit was played.

If you have less agile units, then they are vulnerable to igni, so your point is valid regarding not removing agile from units, not regarding which ones should lose it.
A unit coming out of the deck can come on its own row, or a random row, as, for instance, Queensguards (fixed row), Roach and Saskia (random row). So that is not a valid point.
If there are any units that should no longer be agile, those with a trio ability are those which would be hurt less because there's already an advantage of playing them all on the same row. It mitigates the impact. On the other hand, cards that rely on moving units (dwarven mercs, BMC, etc.) must remain agile otherwise they become completely useless.
Only units which affect other units based on their position, and units whose effect is movement related, absolutely have to be agile. All the others could be turned into a specific row. In Open Beta, agility being a ST thing felt nice. If you wanted agility, you played ST, but it came at a slight cost in Str. I liked that system.
 
LDiCesare;n9337891 said:
If you have less agile units, then they are vulnerable to igni, so your point is valid regarding not removing agile from units, not regarding which ones should lose it.

you realize that i was refuting the idea that units with trio should lose agility, right?

LDiCesare;n9337891 said:
A unit coming out of the deck can come on its own row, or a random row, as, for instance, Queensguards (fixed row), Roach and Saskia (random row). So that is not a valid point.

since when do queensguard come out of the deck? and as previously stated, blue stripes commando comes to the row where the unit is played

LDiCesare;n9337891 said:
If there are any units that should no longer be agile, those with a trio ability are those which would be hurt less because there's already an advantage of playing them all on the same row.

it hasn't been established that any units should lose agility

LDiCesare;n9337891 said:
All the others could be turned into a specific row

and then the game will be utterly dominated by igni, as it was in closed beta. there's a reason why the game moved away from the closed beta model; and it's because it was terrible
 
RickMelethron;n9337971 said:
you realize that i was refuting the idea that units with trio should lose agility, right?
Yes, but that argument is valid for ALL agile units that would lose the ability, so it's not a valid argument.
RickMelethron;n9337971 said:
since when do queensguard come out of the deck? and as previously stated, blue stripes commando comes to the row where the unit is played
Uh. Queensguard come out of graveyard, but it's irrelevant where they come from. The point is where the units arrive. Roach and Saskia come out of deck. There is no reason why the blue stripes commando would have to come on the same row as the summoning unit, they could do the same as Roach and Saskia and arrive on, maybe, a different row. It would be pretty easy to change them to arrive on, say, Ranged row all of the time.
it hasn't been established that any units should lose agility
Indeed, but I've given criteria for units that should remain agile, and another one (trio) for units which would be least affected by it. I propose the change that affected the least number of units.
If you think all units should remain as agile as they are, you should probably have said so instead of asking which ones. It would have been clearer.
and then the game will be utterly dominated by igni, as it was in closed beta. there's a reason why the game moved away from the closed beta model; and it's because it was terrible
Sure. Now the game has something like 3 different leaders being used, all the other ones being completely hopeless. I think it's way worse than closed beta ever was, but to each their own.
 
RickMelethron;n9330741 said:
why? sometimes i don't want to trigger the trio of WHR and make them vulnerable to igni. the same applies to reaver hunters
i also don't care about the trio of commandos, and a unit that comes out of the deck not being agile is quite silly considering they will come to the row where the previous unit was played.

That's exactly it. You wouldn't be allowed to just place them all down, you need to be tactical about it. It adds a whole new layer to the game.
 

Guest 4189891

Guest
Has anyone noticed a pattern where people will place a lot of units on the Infantry row and the Siege row, but not the Ranged row? This is especially aggravating for White Frost.
 
Top Bottom