PDA

View Full Version : stonewall ability



archita
03-05-2013, 05:06 AM
i consider stonewall ability really annoying. Ability can be used to end of movement blocking movements especially in maps like the Hall. I suggest that this ability must be used ONE time only for all lenght of game or reduce effect. It's absurd that this ability block EVERY damage !!!!

sweetjer
03-05-2013, 05:08 AM
Stonewall blocks 3/3 for each hit that round, not all damage. If you hate RM, I suggest bringing a Provoker along. Malice will force him to drop the wall and make him vulnerable.

archita
03-05-2013, 05:47 AM
yes but some builds have 2 raidmasters used in a way to isolate and block movement of warriors in an angle. They are invulnerable to archer shot ( bird of prey too ! ). I think that must be limited this ability or deleted too ( wallshield is already good and sufficient ). Raidmasters can have armour 14 sametime also.

Lekkit
03-05-2013, 06:35 AM
I think Stonewall is a great ability. But not broken. If I want to use 2 RM to block 1 Warrior, I've used two Raiders to hinder 1 Warrior from moving the way you want him to move. A Single SS could do that as well. While doing damage. What makes the ability good, in my opinion, is that I can force you to focus on other parts of my force while I turtle. And while turtling, I can't really do much besides block movement.

[EDIT:] But I can really see why it's an ability that could be seen as super annoying.

archita
03-05-2013, 07:08 AM
infact stonewall permit to one RM to block 2 warriors positioning between them for limit of map too. I think that this ability must be deleted or usable one time only.

Lekkit
03-05-2013, 07:17 AM
With the amount of great offensive abilities and stats, I think some defense is needed. And I don't mean to sound rude, but if one small guy can block two Warriors, I think it's either the map or the deployment that needs to be looked at. Not the guy standing there.

piotras
03-05-2013, 07:32 AM
I understand it can be annoying when he blocks, but we need abilities that do other things than damage. And it's not overpowered, because he can't do damage at all to use this ability and if used wrongly he gives a turn advantage to the opponent. I've played against 2xRM builds who were overusing this ability. By the time the opponent started using his RM for armour break it was too late. You can push him away with battling ram and malice him. I've used 2x RM myself and know first hand that good balanced build can deal with him easily.

archita
03-05-2013, 07:50 AM
yes but map is really little and i think that can be good idea get block effect in forward part of RM but not behind, In this way bonus attack by behind can be part of a strategy based on armoured lines. A overarmoured warrior can be more vulnerabile by behind for example. In this way high armour is not more so hard to beat for build less armoured.

Phantom
03-05-2013, 09:08 AM
Cant high str warriors do good damage even through a stonewall? I suppose if he had two raidmasters next to each other for +2 armor it would be that much harder to wound them, but at that point he's down two units for a turn and 2 willpower.

In the end it comes down to don't play a match in such a way that you need to not be blocked when he is capable of blocking.

quartex
03-05-2013, 09:13 AM
Phantom, I know from experience that a full strength warhawk or warmaster can easily cut through the raidmaster's stonewall ability and do strength damage. So stonewall doesnt make your unit invulnerable.

archita
03-05-2013, 10:15 AM
why there arent bonus for behind attacks ?

GreenDread
03-05-2013, 10:30 AM
The ability is well balanced imho. It can be used to control movement, yes, but it's your job to foresee that, as it is the main threat from a Raidmaster to just walk up to a Varl in formation. But thats about it, once the raidmaster stops using stonewall, he's likely to get hit by some break attacks and then the ability is not that effective anymore, because high-strength units can still hobble or maim him.

Facing has no gameplay effect for simplicitys sake. Wouldnt make sense, whatsoever, as most units could just walk behind an enemy to attack him from behind.

erom
03-05-2013, 12:13 PM
Yeah, facing bonuses to attacks only make sense in games with zones of control, imo.

archita
03-05-2013, 12:40 PM
why not exagons ? get more tactic and a unit can attack in more direction around reducing certain block tactics and little dimensions of map...

Wordplay
03-05-2013, 01:56 PM
Working as intended. Annoying, for sure, but not broken. I tend to just work around them, move past, and hit the rest of the team whilst the Raidmaster's sitting on his hands. Ignore him until he attacks or runs out of willpower - of course, that means I have to be careful to keep some strength and WP back to deal with him.

Very effective blocker - but you know that that style of play is coming when you see him in your opponent's line-up. I field a Strongarm - so I guess if they were ever a serious problem, I'd just move the Raimaster.

RobertTheScott
03-05-2013, 02:59 PM
why not exagons ? get more tactic and a unit can attack in more direction around reducing certain block tactics and little dimensions of map...

Because blocking--and working around blocks--is fun! Full tactical flexibility makes the game simpler, paradoxically. It becomes a race to compute the right path, not a complex jockeying for optimal position.