I don't think remove reach is the right idea

+
^Removal of reach leads right back to rows losing identity, certain cards only playable on a row doesn't change that, unless ALL row-limited offensive cards are melee and defensive range (if we can affect a unit despite its on melee or range and don't have to play our cards on a specific row, then either rows make no difference)

EDIT: Before you mention Formation, read my arguments below. I acknowlege formation as a decision is important, but it doesn't provide row identity

EDIT: My core argument: Row identity can be simply gained by adding reach-2 tag to more units, making melee row more dangerous and range row safer. And if you want to counter an opponent's core card in his/her range row, you will have to place your reach-2 units to melee, thus risking them get butchere by reach-1 units.

The back row is safer is the right idea, and the fact we don't see much play of reach 1 unit is exactly due to the lack of reach 2 units

Follow this logic:
1.Play important units in the range because it's safer (reach 1 can't reach)
2.Opponent has to play reach 2 unit on melee to affect opponent's range units
3. Reach 1 units now can be used to affect the units on melee

So yeah, I think the problem with reach is due to the lack of it (if there are more units with reach 2 limit, reach 1 units will have their uses), even tho it wasn't perfect, still it provided row identity, and I worry we will lose that in the next patch

EDIT: Give some important/threatening units a melee requirement also put reach 1 units in a better situation as well

Adding some of my core arguments in the threads on the main post so people can read:

#7
since there are going to be both melee-only offensive/defensive and range-only offensive/defensive units, row no longer has meaning. Because your units can be targeted whereever you put it, what it provides is only restrictions. (and with row identity gone, it doesn't matter anymore either way)

#9
What is row identity really? It's that deciding where to put your units has a meaning, not only to your own strategy (formation provides that but only that), but it should also affect your opponent's strategy as well (reach provides, or provided that)

Giving row limitation (limiting to put only on melee or range) give row movement a more important role, yes. But since only SC has a good movement synergy, it's something benefits only to SC. And developing a core mechnic so that one certain faction can benefit/abuse from it is toxic, not healthy game design.
Worst of all, most factions don't have counter for it at all once their core unit is moved

#14
With reach the row identity is clear: Range row is safer, Melee is more risky. That is why with reach in mind, melee-only cards and formation can be a good addition towards the row identity (good melee-only cards will have to be on a more risky position, formation makes you decide whether risk losing the unit but get to use its ability right away, or make it safely in the back with 1 more point to help it survive and use it another turn). With reach gone, both row-limited units and formation no longer provides row identity, since they can be countered whereever you put it
 
Last edited:
Reach 1 units weren't played at all, except when there wasn't a better choice (e.g. Dwarven Skirmisher). So, saying that row identity has been weakened, while technically correct, is also mostly a moot point to make here. The devs have tried it with the reach mechanic and it wasn't working out because the difference between reach 1 and 2 was so big, it completely broke the concept.

I would like to see row identity making a comeback in a different way. Formation for NR is a good example of this.
 
Reach 1 units weren't played at all, except when there wasn't a better choice (e.g. Dwarven Skirmisher). So, saying that row identity has been weakened, while technically correct, is also mostly a moot point to make here. The devs have tried it with the reach mechanic and it wasn't working out because the difference between reach 1 and 2 was so big, it completely broke the concept.

I would like to see row identity making a comeback in a different way. Formation for NR is a good example of this.

But like you said yourself, some of the reach 1 units are played, especially SC ones, since they have movement synergy.
And that's exactly what made reach a good mechnic, for SC at least, it's interactable and fits the synergy. So removing all reach hurts SC faction identity

The problem of formation is that it kinda limits you which row you need to play the card, but it doesn't mean it gives row identity. Because without reach, front row back row no longer have different risk level, a back row unit can be killed just as easy as a front row unit.
And that again, bring back the old argument of "it provides different functions depends on XX, but it doesn't make XX special"
You can give formation the tooltip of "play this card, and if you do a "well played" taunt after, it gains zeal; if you played a "hurry up" taunt after, it boosts 1", and it wouldn't change anything

Formation lacks the interaction needed to provide row identity
 
If cutting out one row was supposed to focus the game back on row identity, why is row identity still not a thing in July 2019? Will it be a thing in 2020? 2021?

Jokes
 
If cutting out one row was supposed to focus the game back on row identity, why is row identity still not a thing in July 2019? Will it be a thing in 2020? 2021?

Jokes

Please turn down the tone a bit, but I agree....without reach the row identity will most likely be lost
They should have give a lot more cards "reach", but instead they removed it
 
Removing reach was the right step, and i think row identity is better now, when u look at the patch notes u can see that they changed a lot of cards to be where their ability can be used only on 1 row
 
Removing reach was the right step, and i think row identity is better now, when u look at the patch notes u can see that they changed a lot of cards to be where their ability can be used only on 1 row

Like I said above, I don't think that's providing row identity
You have to play some units on some rows doesn't make that row special, and since there are both melee-only offensive/defensive and range-only offensive/defensive units, row no longer has meaning. Because your units can be targeted whereever you put it, you just have to put it on certain row from time to time. It removes the interations based on rows and adds only restriction on where to put certain cards (and with row identity gone, it doesn't matter anymore either way)

The reason melee-only or range-only units worked is because the range row is suppose to be safer and melee row more dangerous, and that is contributed by reach. Without that, which row to put your unit means nothing
 
I would like to see row identity making a comeback in a different way. Formation for NR is a good example of this.

I think requiring units to remain in a row for their ability to be activated is the best way to enforce the row identity and allows for disruption through movement or pressure thought trebuchets and pikemen
 
I think requiring units to remain in a row for their ability to be activated is the best way to enforce the row identity and allows for disruption through movement or pressure thought trebuchets and pikemen

I feel like I'm talking the same thing over and over again and it's just not going through you guys...

What is row identity really? It's that deciding where to put your units has a meaning, not only to your own strategy (formation provides that but only that), but it should also affect your opponent's strategy as well (reach provides, or provided that)

Giving row limitation (limiting to put only on melee or range) give row movement a more important role, yes. But since only SC has a good movement synergy, it's something benefits only to SC. And developing a core mechnic so that one certain faction can benefit/abuse from it is toxic, not healthy game design.
Worst of all, most factions don't have counter for it at all once their core unit is moved

Tell you what I'm willing to make bet that very soon after the patch release we will see waves of SC complaint posts here on forum
 
I feel like I'm talking the same thing over and over again and it's just not going through you guys...

I liked reach too, and I did enjoy the idea of forcing players to place units on the melee row in order to reach the ranged row and get exposed to reach 1 units. However, CDPR designed a faction without the reach keyword, apparently enjoyed the results and is now extending the idea to all other units.

Given that decision, I think the way to make rows matter is what I said in the previous post.

Sure, the scoia'tael is the best "movement" faction but trebuchets and pikemen can pressure their rows.
 
I prefer cards to have a different ability on each row. That to me makes rows matter the most.

Row locked is ok on certain cards.
Post automatically merged:

But like you said yourself, some of the reach 1 units are played, especially SC ones, since they have movement synergy.
And that's exactly what made reach a good mechnic, for SC at least, it's interactable and fits the synergy. So removing all reach hurts SC faction identity

I really don't see what reach has to do with SC faction identity.

The problem of formation is that it kinda limits you which row you need to play the card, but it doesn't mean it gives row identity. Because without reach, front row back row no longer have different risk level, a back row unit can be killed just as easy as a front row unit.
And that again, bring back the old argument of "it provides different functions depends on XX, but it doesn't make XX special"
You can give formation the tooltip of "play this card, and if you do a "well played" taunt after, it gains zeal; if you played a "hurry up" taunt after, it boosts 1", and it wouldn't change anything

Formation lacks the interaction needed to provide row identity

Formation is awesome and is a great example of how to make rows matter. That's the entire point of rows is to make them matter.

You do have a decent argument in regards to not having a different risk level anymore for front or back but I don't think the game was necessarily better that way. All people did was memorize which faction to avoid a certain row with. If you play NR don't play on the back row. If you are playing NG don't play on the front row. I didn't really find it that interesting.
Post automatically merged:

Giving row limitation (limiting to put only on melee or range) give row movement a more important role, yes. But since only SC has a good movement synergy, it's something benefits only to SC. And developing a core mechnic so that one certain faction can benefit/abuse from it is toxic, not healthy game design.
Worst of all, most factions don't have counter for it at all once their core unit is moved

Tell you what I'm willing to make bet that very soon after the patch release we will see waves of SC complaint posts here on forum

Movement is still important to SC without reach. SC's best plays have nothing to do with reach at all. Lining up lacerate, igni, moving bowman with Brouver, etc etc
 
Last edited:
I prefer cards to have a different ability on each row. That to me makes rows matter the most.

Row locked is ok on certain cards.
Post automatically merged:



I really don't see what reach has to do with SC faction identity.



Formation is awesome and is a great example of how to make rows matter. That's the entire point of rows is to make them matter.

You do have a decent argument in regards to not having a different risk level anymore for front or back but I don't think the game was necessarily better that way. All people did was memorize which faction to avoid a certain row with. If you play NR don't play on the back row. If you are playing NG don't play on the front row. I didn't really find it that interesting.
Post automatically merged:



Movement is still important to SC without reach. SC's best plays have nothing to do with reach at all. Lining up lacerate, igni, moving bowman with Brouver, etc etc

The reason SC reach 1 units see more use than other factions' is exactly due to the fact they have movement. Can't find a target? Move one from range. Other factions simply can't do that
So yeah, since reach cares about row identity (range row being the safer one), SC's movement get to have another layer of importance to it and thus making it faction identity (the ability to affect reach)

As for formation I already talked about it in #9. They are a good addition but they lack the ability to make interactions. And without interactions, there is nothing to row identity.

Like I said the problem with SC movement is not losing its importance, it's overpower/abusive. With more engine cards have row restriction, SC movement is the third "deny" way that no other factions can counter (other one being lock and kill). All the while maintaining its original power. It's going to be overpowered in a unhealthy way
 
The reason SC reach 1 units see more use than other factions' is exactly due to the fact they have movement. Can't find a target? Move one from range. Other factions simply can't do that
So yeah, since reach cares about row identity (range row being the safer one), SC's movement get to have another layer of importance to it and thus making it faction identity (the ability to affect reach)

I can only speak for myself but I've never thought to myself that Dwarven Skirmishers are an ok card because we have movement. I've always hated Skirmishers because they are too restrictive and not worth the effort. Literally the only reason I ever used skirmishers was because they are cheap dwarves and when you make a dwarf deck you need as many as possible. I bet if you ask any other dwarf player they will say the same thing.

As for formation I already talked about it in #9. They are a good addition but they lack the ability to make interactions. And without interactions, there is nothing to row identity.

I'm assuming when you say row identity you mean "making rows matter"? Formation does exactly that so I don't really get your argument.

Like I said the problem with SC movement is not losing its importance, it's overpower/abusive. With more engine cards have row restriction, SC movement is the third "deny" way that no other factions can counter (other one being lock and kill). All the while maintaining its original power. It's going to be overpowered in a unhealthy way

Ohhhhhhh when you said complaints about SC you meant people are going to find them to be overpowered? I honestly disagree. I'm expecting SC to be one of the weakest factions if not the weakest. IMO they need an overhaul just like NR got. If SC does have a tier 0 deck I don't expect it to have much to do with movement.
 
I can only speak for myself but I've never thought to myself that Dwarven Skirmishers are an ok card because we have movement. I've always hated Skirmishers because they are too restrictive and not worth the effort. Literally the only reason I ever used skirmishers was because they are cheap dwarves and when you make a dwarf deck you need as many as possible. I bet if you ask any other dwarf player they will say the same thing.



I'm assuming when you say row identity you mean "making rows matter"? Formation does exactly that so I don't really get your argument.



Ohhhhhhh when you said complaints about SC you meant people are going to find them to be overpowered? I honestly disagree. I'm expecting SC to be one of the weakest factions if not the weakest. IMO they need an overhaul just like NR got. If SC does have a tier 0 deck I don't expect it to have much to do with movement.

Again back to the old argument, formation as a decision matter to the player who played it, but as far as row identity goes, it doesn't provide the row identity because all the formation cards are the same if you change the ability to (play it to the left side to get zeal, place it in the right side to get boost). There is nothing players can interact, or counter

With reach the row identity is clear: Range row is safer, Melee is more risky. That is why with reach in mind, melee-only cards and formation can be a good addition towards the row identity (good melee-only cards will have to be on a more risky position, formation makes you decide whether risk losing the unit but get to use its ability right away, or make it safely in the back with 1 more point to help it survive and use it another turn).

But with reach gone, row-restricted units and formation no longer provide the row identity, because if you can counter a card, it doesn't matter which row it is in. The formation as a decision is still important, but it has nothing to do with row

We will see if SC become abusive (especially towards NR and probably SY). SC wasn't too strong because it require set up to be strong and movement as a counter is not strong. Now movement acts like the third kind of deny no one else can counter, it's going to make engine heavy decks cry

Now before you reply further, please answer this one question: What is row identity in the new patch? What makes melee row special from range row?
The old identity like i said is simple: Melee is more risky, Range is safer. What is the new row identity? "You can put a specific card there to do something" is NOT row identity, not to mention formation is a NR only thing
 
Last edited:
Again back to the old argument, formation as a decision matter to the player who played it, but as far as row identity goes, it doesn't provide the row identity because all the formation cards are the same if you change the ability to (play it to the left side to get zeal, place it in the right side to get boost). There is nothing players can interact, or counter

With reach the row identity is clear: Range row is safer, Melee is more risky. That is why with reach in mind, melee-only cards and formation can be a good addition towards the row identity (good melee-only cards will have to be on a more risky position, formation makes you decide whether risk losing the unit but get to use its ability right away, or make it safely in the back with 1 more point to help it survive and use it another turn).

But with reach gone, row-restricted units and formation no longer provide the row identity, because if you can counter a card, it doesn't matter which row it is in. The formation as a decision is still important, but it has nothing to do with row

We will see if SC become abusive (especially towards NR and probably SY). SC wasn't too strong because it require set up to be strong and movement as a counter is not strong. Now movement acts like the third kind of deny no one else can counter, it's going to make engine heavy decks cry

I'm trying to get your argument but it's going over my head. I don't understand what the phrase row identity even means. You say it doesn't matter what row the card is on if it can be countered but that's the entire point of formation. The fact you play it on ranged row makes it vulnerable. I don't know how you can say it doesn't have anything to do with the row when that is the entire point of formation. On melee your order ability is safe and on ranged it is vulnerable.

Most engine cards aren't row restricted so I'm not that concerned about SC. I don't forsee playing them as much as other factions anyway.

Edit: One issue with your argument is that before this upcoming patch melee and ranged row wasn't even that significant. There are a lot of removal cards in the game that don't even use reach so being on the back row was hardly much safer than the front row. Syndicate is a great example because they don't give a crap what row you are on.
 
I'm trying to get your argument but it's going over my head. I don't understand what the phrase row identity even means. You say it doesn't matter what row the card is on if it can be countered but that's the entire point of formation. The fact you play it on ranged row makes it vulnerable. I don't know how you can say it doesn't have anything to do with the row when that is the entire point of formation. On melee your order ability is safe and on ranged it is vulnerable.

Most engine cards aren't row restricted so I'm not that concerned about SC. I don't forsee playing them as much as other factions anyway.

I just added one more sentence to my last reply, but you finished reading quicker than i thought..

So i will just post it here again:

What is row identity in the new patch? What makes melee row special from range row?

The old identity like i said is simple: Melee is more risky, Range is safer. What is the new row identity? "You can put a specific card there to do something" is NOT row identity, that changes with every new card and there is no general rule of thumb every factions' players need to take notes. Not to mention formation is a NR only thing
 
I just added one more sentence to my last reply, but you finished reading quicker than i thought..

So i will just post it here again:

What is row identity in the new patch? What makes melee row special from range row?

The old identity like i said is simple: Melee is more risky, Range is safer. What is the new row identity? "You can put a specific card there to do something" is NOT row identity, that changes with every new card and there is no general rule of thumb every factions' players need to take notes. Not to mention formation is a NR only thing

I just had the same issue lol. I just edited in the point that I never felt safer on the back row. Nearly all good removal cards in the game can hit the back row just fine so that kind of row identity you are talking about is something that really didn't matter from what I saw.

Oh and formation is just the groundwork for what I want to see in most cards in the game. A different ability on each row. That's only going to help the game.
 
Edit: One issue with your argument is that before this upcoming patch melee and ranged row wasn't even that significant. There are a lot of removal cards in the game that don't even use reach so being on the back row was hardly much safer than the front row. Syndicate is a great example because they don't give a crap what row you are on.

Aye and that's the point. I believe giving more cards (old an new) reach 2 tags will solve the problem simple and easy.
With more range 2 cards, It's even more important to play your core cards on range row, because if row identity matters, reach 1 units should be worth bringing. And with your opponent have to play his/her range 2 units on melee to counter your core cards on range, reach 1 units will be threatening and see use
Post automatically merged:

I just had the same issue lol. I just edited in the point that I never felt safer on the back row. Nearly all good removal cards in the game can hit the back row just fine so that kind of row identity you are talking about is something that really didn't matter from what I saw.

Oh and formation is just the groundwork for what I want to see in most cards in the game. A different ability on each row. That's only going to help the game.

Damnn we are replying pretty fast for this forum's activity XD

Aye I'm saying the old version needs changing by simply adding reach-2 to more units, and with that we will find reach 1 units being used, thus creating a more dangerous melee row

I have nothing against formation, different ability on different row is nothing new and I like how it's done, I'm just saying it doesn't provide the row identity. You can make formation to play it on range to get zeal and on melee to boost 1, it woul still be the same
 
Aye and that's the point. I believe giving more cards (old an new) reach 2 tags will solve the problem simple and easy.
With more range 2 cards, It's even more important to play your core cards on range row, because if row identity matters, reach 1 units should be worth bringing. And with your opponent have to play his/her range 2 units on melee to counter your core cards on range, reach 1 units will be threatening and see use
Post automatically merged:



Damnn we are replying pretty fast for this forum's activity XD

Aye I'm saying the old version needs changing by simply adding reach-2 to more units, and with that we will find reach 1 units being used, thus creating a more dangerous melee row

I have nothing against formation, different ability on different row is nothing new and I like how it's done, I'm just saying it doesn't provide the row identity. You can make formation to play it on range to get zeal and on melee to boost 1, it woul still be the same

Ok I think I get what you mean by row identity now. At this point I'm not concerned with row identity. Ever since the game was made they never made the rows special from one another so I have given up on that idea. I won't comment on your idea of giving reach to basically every card in the game because I don't really know what the game would be like. The devs decided to go in another direction so we'll see what happens.
 
Ok I think I get what you mean by row identity now. At this point I'm not concerned with row identity. Ever since the game was made they never made the rows special from one another so I have given up on that idea. I won't comment on your idea of giving reach to basically every card in the game because I don't really know what the game would be like. The devs decided to go in another direction so we'll see what happens.

Not necessarily to all the units, but for it to work it needs to be on most units for sure
Aye good to see someone finally understand my point XD many ppl just come in say "Formation" and gone

Aye we shall see where CDPR bring us, despite reach changes I still have high hope for the new patch
Good talking to you man
 
Top Bottom