^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
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: