2022 Errata - Raspy 1

[profdikweed]

New errata is out and raspy1 had been touched significantly.

 

What's everyone's thoughts?

[Thatguy]

Seems like a pretty significant upgrade to me. Card Draw to counteract Ice Mirror Discard.
Extra damage on Winter's Strike makes it a pretty significant beater attack.
December's Passage adds a lot of movement shenanigans for a bonus action.

She no longer has a Melee attack, but she can December's Passage herself to safety.

[profdikweed]

The upgrade to harsh winter meaning enemies don't get cover from your ice pillars is massive. It cannot be overstated how drastically this changes her.

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

17 hours ago, profdikweed said:

The upgrade to harsh winter meaning enemies don't get cover from your ice pillars is massive. It cannot be overstated how drastically this changes her.

I agree. Ever wanted to pick Envy for free focus but was discouraged due to the countersynergy of Ice Pillars and gun attacks? Now it's no longer the case.

[Jordon]

Still wrapping my head around new Raspy. I’m curious how she’ll compare to Raspy2 now. 
 

When do you see yourself reaching for one over the other? Seems like both have some powerful movement tricks and both can hit decently hard. 
 

The big difference seems to come down to summoning Vs card draw. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

This Rasputina has...

Incredible mobility for her team. Like it is just absurdly good to tack on an 8 inch place to her crew.

A super solid gun. Coupled with the mobility, anything she wants dead is dead.

An incredible Shockwave. Anyone who fails to spread against this raspy is in for a bad time.

Decent card cycling.

Overall I am extremely impressed by her and will be surprised if she doesn't deliver.

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

3 hours ago, Jordon said:

When do you see yourself reaching for one over the other? Seems like both have some powerful movement tricks and both can hit decently hard. 

Rasputina, Abominable seems more susceptible to hard counters: ignoring Armor/Shielded, irreducible damage, Stunned. OG Raspy can easily punish bubble crews. I think in her case the choice may depend entirely on the opposing keyword.

[Jinn]

I just wish her gun had a way to avoid damage on friendlies so that blasting onto a Kaltgeist for the +1 damage was viable, then their Frostbite Aura would have some more synergy with her slow trigger.

Disclaimer: I haven't played the new version yet so the following is just baseless speculation.

I think she still doesn't look very good. Sure she got more consistent with resources, but more of her power is now in her gun and out of her shockwaves which makes her need good cards more. I'm just imagining how many activations I'm going to want to target a specific model that isn't next to an Ice Pillar (or they've positioned such that a crate or a corner is between them and the Ice Pillar) using her gun and then realising that I'm using a 2/3/4 attack as a "damage" Master, or I'm going to have to spend an AP to get one down next to them.

The movement bonus action is very nice (She can move herself almost as fast as a Mv 6 Master if she does it and triple walks! It actually is great for scheming though.) but what is the crew's identity, melee or ranged? Do I focus on sending the Golem in even if it means my main damage with my Master suffers friendly fire, and my now Ice Pillar ignoring Acolytes go back to being penalised at range? 

I guess my question is, what is her role intended to be now and is she actually good at it? I feel like she's missing something basic, like some solid Slow Synergy. If she had something crazy like versus Slow models, or an unresisted bonus action that gave Adversary (December) to target Slow model I'd feel like her identity was more clear.

 

Also, no Ice Gamin buff? Why would I take these when Kaltgeists exist? They're outclassed in their own keyword! I haven't heard many people complain about Sandeep since his nerf, so I don't think buffing them is much of a risk.

[Jordon]

I don’t really see her as a damage dealer. I think Kaeris is still a better fit if your looking for consistent damage. 
 

I see Raspy as a control piece. Mostly as I think she was intended to be originally. Having a blast on weak damage and two triggers that can work on those blast markers makes it a lot easier to apply those triggers now. Also that 3” push trigger can also work on friendly models as well which might make for some big plays occasionally.
 

I think a weakness will be singling out models as the investment needed is probably too great to get any sort of real benefit. Her strength lies in her ability to affect crowds. Raspy2 being the more directed option. 
 

At least now she can keep pace with her own abilities if she decides to use her ice mirror. Also letting pillars act as cover for you but not your opponent is pretty huge. 
 

Ice gamin are a real shame. Kaltgeist are just head and shoulders better with both version of Raspy. I assume they wanted to get Raspy herself in a good spot before messing with the rest of the keyword. 

[Chaos184-2]

Got a sort of messy question how does this new harsh winter affect the kaltgeist icy form ability because if im reading them both correctly kaltgeist theoretically no longer provide cover to enemy models (im pretty sure im missing or forgetting somthing) thanks for the help understanding

[Adran]

6 minutes ago, Chaos184-2 said:

Got a sort of messy question how does this new harsh winter affect the kaltgeist icy form ability because if im reading them both correctly kaltgeist theoretically no longer provide cover to enemy models (im pretty sure im missing or forgetting somthing) thanks for the help understanding

Models never caused cover anyway. They can still give friendly fire, and they can still block line of sight. 

[Jinn]

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

Models never caused cover anyway. They can still give friendly fire, and they can still block line of sight. 

I mean, technically Kaltgeists can give cover to enemies if you choose to treat them as Ice Pillar marker while targeting an enemy behind them. It's true that in the new version of Raspy1 this is no longer an option due to the Harsh Winter ability.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

I mean, technically Kaltgeists can give cover to enemies if you choose to treat them as Ice Pillar marker while targeting an enemy behind them. It's true that in the new version of Raspy1 this is no longer an option due to the Harsh Winter ability.

I don't believe that me counting them as an ice pillar gives them the traits Ht 4 and Blocking. Its like I don't think I can treat an ice pillar as a corpse marker and walk through it. It would still be ht 4 and impassable. I think the ability to count something as a marker means that they are a valid target for things that need that type of marker, not that they gain the traits of that marker. So even if I am treating the Kaltigiest as an Ice Pillar it is not ever Ht 4. 

[Chaos184-2]

I was actually on my way back i had cotten line of sight and cover rules mixed up with a different game in which your own model partially blocking LoS provided your opponents model cover

[Jinn]

11 hours ago, Adran said:

I don't believe that me counting them as an ice pillar gives them the traits Ht 4 and Blocking. Its like I don't think I can treat an ice pillar as a corpse marker and walk through it. It would still be ht 4 and impassable. I think the ability to count something as a marker means that they are a valid target for things that need that type of marker, not that they gain the traits of that marker. So even if I am treating the Kaltigiest as an Ice Pillar it is not ever Ht 4. 

hmm, that's strange. I thought all markers with the same name had the same traits though? Are there any other examples that clarify this? Your example doesn't help, because if you treat an Ice Pillar as a corpse it would still be an impassable Ice Pillar as well. Assuming stuff can be two things.

Why wouldn't you count them as having those traits if you're treating them as a marker that has those traits? If you're treating them as something shouldn't your model act as though they are that thing? 

Here is another example from the Moorwraith:

Rolling Stones: Other friendly Seeker models may treat this model as a Severe Impassable Terrain Marker, which cannot be removed. Other models treat area within 2 of this model as Severe.

So you can definitely be treated as having traits of a marker if you're treated as being a marker with traits. Ice Pillar Markers have traits. Logically being treated as an Ice Pillar Marker means you are treated as having those traits, no?

[solkan]

21 minutes ago, Jinn said:

Why wouldn't you count them as having those traits if you're treating them as a marker that has those traits? If you're treating them as something shouldn't your model act as though they are that thing? 

Think about all of the Resser models that can be treated as Corpse Markers.  You’re not suddenly able to move through a mindless zombie because you’re treating it like a corpse marker, you’re just substituting the mindless zombie where the effect says “Corpse Marker”.

 

[Jinn]

40 minutes ago, solkan said:

Think about all of the Resser models that can be treated as Corpse Markers.  You’re not suddenly able to move through a mindless zombie because you’re treating it like a corpse marker, you’re just substituting the mindless zombie where the effect says “Corpse Marker”.

 

They would still be the Zombie and you can't walk through models. I've already gone over this.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Perhaps a more clear example would be pit traps and scrap markers with sparks.

When you make a scrap marker into a pit trap, it doesn't gain the destructible trait or become 50mm. It is just a scrap marker that has extra traits (severe, hazardous, and is counted as a pit trap for things that care about pit traps).

This isn't spelled out anywhere, but it'd be pretty odd to be like "right, that scrap marker is bigger by 10mm on every side" xD

[Jinn]

30 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Perhaps a more clear example would be pit traps and scrap markers with sparks.

When you make a scrap marker into a pit trap, it doesn't gain the destructible trait or become 50mm. It is just a scrap marker that has extra traits (severe, hazardous, and is counted as a pit trap for things that care about pit traps).

This isn't spelled out anywhere, but it'd be pretty odd to be like "right, that scrap marker is bigger by 10mm on every side" xD

I'm confused how in one case we treat the Moorwraith as being a marker with traits, but in another we do not treat the Kaltgeist as having the traits of the marker it is being treated as. I could understand if there was an unstated exception when it comes to physical characteristics like height, but why in the world would treating them as an Ice Pillar Marker not include the blocking trait?

I simply see no rules basis for this. It's mostly irrelevant, given you would only want to do this for some niche RJ fishing (I guess?) but I don't understand how you're all reaching this conclusion for the Kaltgeist when it uses near identical wording to the Moorwraith. The only reason I could see to treat it differently is that the Ice Pillar Marker isn't defined on the Kaltgeist's card, but Wyrd have said that all Markers of the same name share all of the same terrain traits.

[dancater]

3 hours ago, Jinn said:

Here is another example from the Moorwraith:

Rolling Stones: Other friendly Seeker models may treat this model as a Severe Impassable Terrain Marker, which cannot be removed. Other models treat area within 2 of this model as Severe.

So you can definitely be treated as having traits of a marker if you're treated as being a marker with traits. Ice Pillar Markers have traits. Logically being treated as an Ice Pillar Marker means you are treated as having those traits, no?

Is it not notable that this ability specifically states you count this model as a Severe Impassable Terrain. In other circumstances where the model counts as a Marker but does not specify that it takes on specific terrain characteristics then I'd assume that it is about the "unique" uses that marker has to that crew. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 minutes ago, Jinn said:

I'm confused how in one case we treat the Moorwraith as being a marker with traits

The Moorwraith specifically says it counts as severe and impassable (if you're referring to the Rolling Stones ability).

8 minutes ago, Jinn said:

but in another we do not treat the Kaltgeist as having the traits of the marker it is being treated as.

The Kaltgeist does not say it has the blocking trait.

9 minutes ago, Jinn said:

I simply see no rules basis for this.

Can you give a rules basis for giving it the blocking trait? If not, it does not have the blocking trait (same as corpse markers do not have the blocking trait because nothing gives them the blocking trait).

[Azahul]

Worth noting is that nothing on the Kaltgeist's card defines what an Ice Pillar is. If I'm playing Nekima and hire a Kaltgeist OOK, there will be no rule on any of my cards or in the rulebook saying what traits the Kaltgeist should have. If it were meant to be Blocking, how am I supposed to know that?

 

It is indeed a game norm that markers of the same name normally have the same traits, but there are exceptions (such as the Sparks example above). I think the others have done a fine job outlining the rationale for why Kaltgeists deviate as well.

[Maniacal_cackle]

That said, if you and your opponents don't agree, you can always play it however you want xD

[Jinn]

41 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The Moorwraith specifically says it counts as severe and impassable (if you're referring to the Rolling Stones ability).

The Kaltgeist does not say it has the blocking trait.

Can you give a rules basis for giving it the blocking trait? If not, it does not have the blocking trait (same as corpse markers do not have the blocking trait because nothing gives them the blocking trait).

It's from the FAQ regarding Ice Pillars created by the Banasuva's Demise, it's pretty ironclad:

1. Banasuva – What Height are Ice Pillars placed by Banasuva’s Demise (Elemental Breakdown) Ability?
       a) Height 4. All Markers of a single name share all of the same terrain traits.

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 hours ago, Jinn said:

It's from the FAQ regarding Ice Pillars created by the Banasuva's Demise, it's pretty ironclad:

1. Banasuva – What Height are Ice Pillars placed by Banasuva’s Demise (Elemental Breakdown) Ability?
       a) Height 4. All Markers of a single name share all of the same terrain traits.

I don't think that is ironclad at all. That says all markers of a single name have the same terrain traits, and is pretty clearly aimed at the fact that not all the cards happen to spell out the terrain traits.

Extrapolating that to 'treats as' instances is a stretch (especially since 'treats as' does not change the name of the model. It is still a Kaltgeist, you're just treating it as an ice pillar).

Also I was aware of that FAQ, but I meant do you have any basis under the general rules.