Taelor + Mechanical Rider in Raspy List?

[Tpenksa]

Right now my only master is Rasputina and as much as I love her and what she can do... I get really frustrated with the lack of mobility in her troupe. It seems like a lot of strategies really need speed which Rasputina is obviously lacking... I am still very new and learning a lot about the game however.

Anyway, I had an idea (depending on what strategy I flip) of using the Mechanical Rider with Taelor. The idea is simple. Put the Mechanical rider as close to obj as deployment will allow. Place Taelor directly behind the rider touching it's base. First activation, activate Taelor and hammerstrike the Rider twice giving it a six inch boost. Next activation choose the Rider and proceed to use nimble and a AP to move 12". Hopefully by this 18" turn one move you can use your last AP to interact with whatever the objective is.... use power manipulation and now you have a quick melee beast... In case of a strategy where you need to be holding obj at the end of the game, get out of there and rev up the following turn to get +3 Armor and hard to kill... Taelor still serves a purpose beatsticking enemies that get to close to Raspy (I use Taelor as a sort of a body guard), as well as using hammerstrike to push enemies out of melee range so Raspy can blast them without wasting movement/disengage flip.

As anyone tried this yet? Any thoughts? I have a game this tuesday where I'll probably give this a shot.

Last: I am really tired and didn't proof read so hopefully this makes sense and isn't too hard of a grammatical read.

[Buhallin]

Admittedly I haven't tried it, so take this for what it's worth...

It seems like it should work for getting the rider to the objective quickly, but I see several drawbacks:

1. That's an awful lot of SS worth of models just to get to the objective quickly. Yes, you still have them once you do, but neither synergizes with Rasputina very well. This is a very big deal, IMHO - Rasputina's crew enhances each other a lot, taking out things that give you Bite of Winter or Frozen Heart limits your options a lot.

2. You've hung your rider out solo, and/or stuck it carrying a treasure marker, which will slow her down dramatically. Not a recipe for survival.

I think there are a number of options for getting speed out of Raspy that don't involve giving up half your crew to do it:

1. I love the Sabertooth Cerberus. Leap and Stalker give it a lot of mobility, it hits hard, and you can use her Ice Pillars to help keep it out of LOS for Stalker (this got harder with the v2 cards, used to just need cover).

2. Not out yet, but Snowstorm includes options for moving icy stuff around.

3. Most people think he underperforms for his cost, and I agree, but the December Acolyte's ability to deploy forward can get you to objectives quickly.

4. The Silent One can increase the ranged strikes on a lot of your models. Doesn't necessarily get you there any faster, but does let you threaten enough to slow your opponent down and make them worry about just charging in.

The other option is not to worry about speed so much - don't get to it fast, control it. Rasputina has a ton of board control options, and if you can block off the objective so your opponent can't get to it, you can take your time working up to it.

[Wodschow]

Well mobility is the price Rasputina pays for having the longest ranged ranged(yes, it's x2) attacks in the game, and I think it's actually somewhat fair all things considered - Even if she does indeed feel soooo slooow at times(always).

It's alot of points taking Lady Hammerstrike just for flipping two cards, hoping to get one higher than the Riders Df (odds are on your side, but you can't cheat those flips should you fail..). I also believe that if you push the rider with your first Hammerstrike it will no longer be within 3" for it to be pushed again, so you'd only ever get 3" of it..

I don't think the Mechanical Rider is a bad idea at all however.. If you want a speedy model it really comes down to the Rider, the old school Cerberus or the Coryphée (okay, so some might fancy the Razorspine, Cassandra or even the Steamborg).

Personally I really don't like the Cerberus and find both Book2 solutions much better. I have two issues with it.. a) It's sort of fragile (unless you nurse it and keep it blessed or screened which drains alot of resources).. And far more importantly to use Leap it takes MASKS! Rasputina doesn't have any spare Masks! Seriously!

It was good during the Book1 era - but only because it was our only option!

I'm still toying around with Coryphée - They're undeniably very effective as a pair, but this is also a rather expensive solution. Thus I'm trying them to decide whether they're worth taking as singlets.

Haven't gotten to the Rider yet (don't like proxies, although the Hooded Rider would make a good one for the time being..), but on paper it looks GOO-d.

As for other ways of adding mobility to the crew I think most were discussed by Buhalin already, soeh, nothing special here.. But:

Kaeris, Gunsmith (still beyond me why), most of the Freikorps and Desperate Mercenaries all have a base Wk of 5 which I think is worth mentioning..

Personally I'm really looking forward to adding Kaeris to Rasputina, but Von Schill might be better to make a special mention of in this context as he's Nimble and all sort of other stuff.. He's just generally good at doing objectives I guess and with a larger cache than he's able to take on his own I theorize that he'd be alot of trouble to put down.

[tadaka]

Cant see this working well.

First both hits would need a mask. Asking for decent mask cards to hit your own model 2x is not the best thing to plan around. Second Knock back still does damage. Doing this would hit the rider for at least 6 damage if you got a low card both hits.

Takeing a few marcus crew models such as a tiger would be a much better option to add speed to rasputina.

[Scurry]

hes not talking about hitting the rider but using Taelors Hammerstrike action, where u flip a card and all models with def less than or equal to the card within 3" are pushed 3" away

[Buhallin]

I also believe that if you push the rider with your first Hammerstrike it will no longer be within 3" for it to be pushed again, so you'd only ever get 3" of it..

I think that if you start them in base contact, the first push would be 3", which would put the rider exactly 3" away, and therefore within 3" for the second one.

[Wodschow]

I think that if you start them in base contact, the first push would be 3", which would put the rider exactly 3" away, and therefore within 3" for the second one.

Well yeah.. And I think it would work the other way around..

If you move it 3" then it's clearly no longer within 3"..

I suppose it depends on whether you use < or ≤.. The rulebook doesn't say anything so yeah..

[Buhallin]

I obviously can't guarantee writer's intent, but the formal definitions for within are <=

9. at or to some point not beyond, as in length or distance; not farther than: within a radius of a mile.

10. at or to some amount or degree not exceeding: within two degrees of freezing.

"Not farther than" and "Not exceeding" are solidly in the <= category.

[Wodschow]

Okay, even if that's correct (which I'm not convinced that it is) it'd be impossible to have a distance of 0" between two models anyway.

So their bases are touching? That'd still mean that there's an infinitesimal distance between them greater than 0".

So after having been pushed 3" away you'd be 3" + this infinitesimal distance away which would result in you not being within 3" anyhow.

But whatever, play it like you agree with your friends, makes the most sense to go by what you feel is right.

[Buhallin]

Okay, even if that's correct (which I'm not convinced that it is) it'd be impossible to have a distance of 0" between two models anyway.

So their bases are touching? That'd still mean that there's an infinitesimal distance between them greater than 0".

So after having been pushed 3" away you'd be 3" + this infinitesimal distance away which would result in you not being within 3" anyhow.

But whatever, play it like you agree with your friends, makes the most sense to go by what you feel is right.

:hmmmm:

Uhm... Wow. That's quite the argument. I can honestly say that in more than 30 years of gaming I have never seen its equal.

[Ratty]

:hmmmm:

Uhm... Wow. That's quite the argument. I can honestly say that in more than 30 years of gaming I have never seen its equal.

really it's quite a common argument. We always used to use it in fantasy. The Board is 4ft, deployment zones are 12". It is impossible to place a model so it is exactly on the 12" line, if it is over it your cheating, therefore you model must be fractionally behind it. therefore it is not possible to charge an enemy model if you can move up to 24".

[Hjelmen]

:hmmmm:

Uhm... Wow. That's quite the argument. I can honestly say that in more than 30 years of gaming I have never seen its equal.

Privateer Press had to rule on the subject after a question of "if two models were in b2b contact and one is pushed/moved/whatever X inches, is it still within X inches of the other model after being pushed" sparked off furious never-ending arguments (more like straight up nerd-fights, actually, but... you know). It's even written into the Mk2 rules, just to be in the safe side.

And even now it still crops up... *stifles the bubbling rant about the PP rules forum*

But whatever, play it like you agree with your friends, makes the most sense to go by what you feel is right.

Is what I too would suggest in this case.

[Ratty]

Privateer Press had to rule on the subject after a question of "if two models were in b2b contact and one is pushed/moved/whatever X inches, is it still within X inches of the other model after being pushed" sparked off furious never-ending arguments (more like straight up nerd-fights, actually, but... you know). It's even written into the Mk2 rules, just to be in the safe side.

And even now it still crops up... *stifles the bubbling rant about the PP rules forum*

Is what I too would suggest in this case.

Well I guess if you needed to be in B2B to fight then you would have to assume they were 100% in B2B or combat would never happen. In that case if you were pushed 3" you would be exactly 3" away.

[Buhallin]

Oh, I certainly appreciate the mathematical side of it. I played Protectorate when I played Warmachine, and I knew exactly what the numbers said about my scatter roll, and your base size, and if it meant that you got hit by the blast no matter what the measurements said.

But I've never heard anyone argue that models which are touching actually have a distance between them, and try to factor that into the math. We could have a lot of fun with this, though - which causes a greater molecular distance between them when touching, plastic or resin bases? Does paint count as part of the model? Because the rules don't say, and if we assume that "model" only refers to the actual Wyrd-produced item then determining which model is closest requires knowledge of the paint used, its exact density, the thickness and number of coats applied, etc.

Mostly I'm just unimpressed with the "I think you're wrong but I'm not going to say why, instead throwing a bunch of pedantic silliness about molecular distance." There's no definition for "within" in the rule book, which means we fall back to basic English. The definitions are above, and they're pretty clear. If you've got a different definition from a different source, great! But there's none of that. It basically amounts to "I don't like the way that feels, so I'm going to redefine the term to my own liking."

If you're going to house rule it, fine - house rule it. Don't waste time justifying it with idiocy like that.

[Wodschow]

I'm sorry to hear that you find my argumentation rubbish, however as little as you might like rules arguing based on the mathematical aspect of the situation as little do I like argumentation based on entries from a dictionary - I however refrained from calling your argumentation for idiocy and would rather that you'd done the same.

But to be honest talking about the thickness of the paint is the true idiocy here. Wyrd already specified the sizes of them models' bases, those are what you use.

Also:

-Quantum physics aside two objects cannot occupy the same location at the same time.

-The distance between the two locations a and b only equals 0 if a and b refer to the same location.

Which neatly results in what I wrote in my previous post.

If you're going to house rule it, fine - house rule it. Don't waste my time trash talking my argumentation for no particular reason other than the fact that you don't like the way that feels.

Edit: Sorry for derailing this thread Tpenska, I think most of us found Taelor a tid too expensive if this is all you wanted to do with her.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Wodschow

[Buhallin]

Self-censored. Arguing with anyone who would choose to bring that into a game is pointless.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Buhallin

[elril]

Also:

-Quantum physics aside two objects cannot occupy the same location at the same time.

-The distance between the two locations a and b only equals 0 if a and b refer to the same location.

Point B depends if you measure infintismal point object to similar infitismal point object. As in abstracts. In cases of object occupying volume it is possible for two objects to abut, such that there is no space between them.

I don't know how the PP argument settled out, less do I care. I quit that game because of that exact type of argument. I play the game, not the rules.

[LoboStele]

Um....guys, this is rather pointless....Within means WITHIN...not EXACTLY 3". It's the same as summoning a model within 6". You can put that model anywhere inside the 6" from the originating model. So, if you push the model to within 3" of Taelor, then you could push it only 0.5", or 2", or the full 3".

Now of course, Taelor's V2 card doesn't have the word 'within' on it anyways, so I can't really figure out what you're talking about anyways. IMO, the card now says you 'Push defender 3" directly away from this model'. So, if you start anywhere other than occuping the same physical space as Taelor (which is impossible in game terms), then once you push the 3" away, you'd be outside of her 3" melee range.

[Buhallin]

Now of course, Taelor's V2 card doesn't have the word 'within' on it anyways, so I can't really figure out what you're talking about anyways.

You're looking at the wrong ability. The discussion is about Hammerstrike, not her Knockback trigger.

Um....guys, this is rather pointless....Within means WITHIN...not EXACTLY 3".

Sorry, but within DOES include EXACTLY 3". That's the point of the definitions I cited above - within means "Not more than X", so "within 3 inches" means "Not more than 3 inches" If someone actually has a source for a different definition, whether Wyrd or otherwise, I'd love to hear it. But I've checked multiple sources, all agree on the actual definition of the term.

But at the moment, this is a "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." thing.

[LoboStele]

LOL at the quote.

My bad, I was looking at the wrong thing. Plus, I thought you were discussing it based on where the piece would end up, not as to whether or not it would be in range for another Hammerstrike after the first one.

I would tend to say that a piece would only be eligible for 1 Hammerstrike though, even if the piece starts adjacent to Taelor. That seems to be the flavor of the ability, but I could see how opinions would differ on it.

Either way, you're still banking on flipping a lucky card, higher than the Horse's Df. So, about a 30% chance of failing it.

[Buhallin]

I would tend to say that a piece would only be eligible for 1 Hammerstrike though, even if the piece starts adjacent to Taelor. That seems to be the flavor of the ability, but I could see how opinions would differ on it.

<nod> I can certainly see it, but at least RAW it's pretty unambiguous.

[Wodschow]

... RAW it's pretty unambiguous.

As this thread clearly shows..? :hmmmm:

And.. Really, I'm not trying to enforce my opinions on anyone here, I just got in a bad mood when my opinions were called 'idiocy'.

But whatever, play it like you agree with your friends, makes the most sense to go by what you feel is right.

Thank you very much.

Point B depends if you measure infintismal point object to similar infitismal point object. As in abstracts. In cases of object occupying volume it is possible for two objects to abut, such that there is no space between them.

That's true.. I was just considering the bases to be two dimensional closed spheres.

[Buhallin]

As this thread clearly shows..? :hmmmm:

You choosing to ignore the clear wording because you don't like the dictionary doesn't make it unambiguous. The fact that you had to resort to infinitesimal distances and the argument that models in base contact are more than 0" apart to make your argument pretty much locked it down, honestly - even you know what the rules say, and what the words mean, but you had to get rather creative to twist the reality to what you wanted it to be.

I'm honestly baffled that you thought anyone could look at that and NOT call it idiotic. I left the first response light because I was sure you couldn't actually be serious. My mistake on that, I guess.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Buhallin

[Wodschow]

You choosing to ignore the clear wording because you don't like the dictionary doesn't make it unambiguous. The fact that you had to resort to infinitesimal distances and the argument that models in base contact are more than 0" apart to make your argument pretty much locked it down, honestly - even you know what the rules say, and what the words mean, but you had to get rather creative to twist the reality to what you wanted it to be.

I'm honestly baffled that you thought anyone could look at that and NOT call it idiotic. I left the first response light because I was sure you couldn't actually be serious. My mistake on that, I guess.

Yeah well.. I think we should just stop it here. You and your friends play with your faulty interpretation and me and my friends will play with our faulty interpretation.

At least it is pretty clear that we play the RAI.

Edit: I'm also still not sure why you find my arguments to be so idiotic..

Edited January 14, 2011 by Wodschow

[elril]

Buhallin, I even agree with your interpretation of range, but the name calling is not right. Give it a rest.