Resonate

[Certs]

Sorry, I just find it frustrating to share/read different experiences from those of the 'pros' only to see them dismiss it as if that group simply doesn't know how to play the game the right way. A comment like that was made over in the Shael Han thread as well, with the issues that group was having being excused as them playing WoK with the another games' mindset.

My group found WoK relatively easy to get into (some clarity issues aside, it's nice that the core ruleset is only roughly 20 pages). And I, myself, like seeing how others approach the game differently from each other. In contrast, I found the comment I quoted as insulting to the friends I play with.

 

[jackfrost]

Sorry, I just find it frustrating to share/read different experiences from those of the 'pros' only to see them dismiss it as if that group simply doesn't know how to play the game the right way. A comment like that was made over in the Shael Han thread as well, with the issues that group was having being excused as them playing WoK with the another games' mindset.

My group found WoK relatively easy to get into (some clarity issues aside, it's nice that the core ruleset is only roughly 20 pages). And I, myself, like seeing how others approach the game differently from each other. In contrast, I found the comment I quoted as insulting to the friends I play with.

I feel you man. The internet doesnt really encourage self reflection all that much. Know that there are many like you amd ignore those who are not.

My last game i technically lost because i had lost 4 moral due to scenarios i just couldnt bloody stop.

Hadross has wweaknesses that can be taken advantage of and they exist on the motivations page.

tell me which motivations do you choose and why?

Hrmm mayne we should create a hadross tactica guide?

 

[Certs]

I'd agree motivation prevention seems our primary weakness due to an average lack of speed and numbers. If my opponent's have marker-based motivations, they're usually able to speed into the middle and grab their first few by the time my troops are just arriving in No Man's Land.

In my last game, it felt like my Teknes friend had already searched a little over half of his 10 Treasure Hunt tokens by about halfway through the 3rd round, just as I was passing the 2 Burn It Down tokens I had placed on my own edge of the middle. I ended up lucking out that game, however, as his last 2 real objectives ended up being located safely behind those 2 tokens of mine, and were positioned just right alongside impassible terrain that his approach was really limited... and completely blocked by the bulk of my force. I waited until the last moment to grab my tokens so as to milk that initiative bonus and block him for as long as possible, winning with just 1 Morale left. If either of those tokens had instead been where one of the fakes he had easily searched earlier was, the game would have likely ended a couple turns earlier and I wouldn't have even had a chance.

For deciding motivations, my group tends to roll for motivations now as otherwise we would almost always pick the same ones that we find the easiest.

I'm usually happy to end up with any of the 3 that involve placing objective markers since it also forces my opponent towards their locations if he wants to stop me from otherwise getting them. While I sometimes cringe at our kill-based objectives because they force me to have to run after my opponent's army and can even get in the way at times.

My personal rankings for the motivations with my Hadross:

1. Burn it Down - easy enough to get 3, sometimes 4 near each other with half being on my side of the middle. Wait for 3rd turn is no problem as that's usually when I'm first able to roll up to them.

2. Treasure Hunt - like Burn it Down with ease to cluster them in one area but randomness can make accomplishing it iffy.

3. Land Grab - like the above but lower on the list because it's further to walk. Could be fun to slingshot a shark to a lone marker via taxi crab and decent scent/rage rolls, but that only works one game before regular opponents anticipate it.

4. Sever the Head - simplest of the kill-based motivations on already priority targets, but lower morale bonus than other motivations.

5. Unstoppable Advance - kinda like Land Grab but harder conditions and a longer walk.

6. Personal Gain - not a fan of putting my leaders/specialists on the frontline where they're more exposed as they usually play a ranged support role instead. It is possible for a taxi crab to move them into position so they can immediately do the objective when they activate, which often seems a better choice than sprinting or waiting a turn and hoping that target is still alive and adjacent. And, targets also sometimes end up as 'hostages' against my attacks and oracle nuke since killing them early forfeits those valuable morale points.

This is with us having lists already prepared before rolling for our motivations. Not sure if others have tried playing that the other way around.

How about you, which motivation(s) do you usually play with?

 

[Teskal]

*Eyeroll* Every time I see comments like this made, feels like what's the point in posting here.

What I wrote was only a (much to short, yes) conclusion of few earlier comments. Which is an answer to the main issue why the thread was started.

If I didn't miss something there are few points how Hadross are easier to defeat

1. removing with interact the resonance of friendly units.
About removing the resonance, it is important that the friendly unit is in base contact. I'm not sure if the rules allow to remove from several units the resonance.
2. getting down the Hadross with the motivation. But how exactly? Are there motivations more effective agains Hadross? Or easier to stop Hadross to get their motivations fulfilled?
3. using magic or range attacks

If they loose always, I wonder if the only reason is that the player took to much LVL2 units and having because of it a low morale. Is it possible to win with a low morale? But this thread is not about helping Hadross.

From the players who have problems with Resonate it would be interesting if some of the points helped them already or if they new more explanations or what they did, eventually a battle report would help.

 

[crazedloon]

If I didn't miss something there are few points how Hadross are easier to defeat

1. removing with interact the resonance of friendly units.
About removing the resonance, it is important that the friendly unit is in base contact. I'm not sure if the rules allow to remove from several units the resonance.

a unit wasting an order removing resonance is as good as a unit keeping it on because it essentially means the hadross player gets 2 activations to your 1. Hadross has such a proliferation of mass resonators (bannerman, gutters, deepcallers) that removal is rarely a problem. Often those same models removing resonate are also stuck in place by gutters so you are giving up an entire activation to essentially net nothing for the non hadross player. The best defense is a good offense if you can kill the things which benefit most from resonate you are better off than trying to scrub it off.

2. getting down the Hadross with the motivation. But how exactly? Are there motivations more effective agains Hadross? Or easier to stop Hadross to get their motivations fulfilled?

motivations can be helpful in bridging the gap but you still end up having to kill the hadross player. Moral can vary based on list construction from 11-20 at battle and hadross is more likely going to be in the low teens. The highest motivation moral loss is 14 but this requires the opponent to move deep into hadross deployment to achieve so the average loss for a crushing motivation is 10 moral (achievable with land grabs or treasure hunts which can take advantage of slow hadross players) but then you still need to kill 9+ hadross models some of the hardest models to kill. all while they are easily equiped to win many of the face offs.

3. using magic or range attacks

like every other faction hadross has roughly the same number of ranged assets. The difference is that hadross targets are much more resilient than most other factions to ranged attacks, having defensive expertise and high resilience combined with a high damage chart. In contrast hadross ranged attacks, for the most part, ignore the chart all together as well as resilience and deal damage 50% of the time (average will is 6) The few defenses against Will attacks only reduce the hit chance to 25% (better than the magic/range chance to hurt a hadross model) or raise the army average WP to 7 (teknes who has iron will has notoriously bad WP to start) this is also assuming the hadross player has not taken ooroths training which makes will checks essentially auto wounds. So you essentially lose the ranged game if you try to stick to it

 

[Certs]

Yeah, I'd probably avoid the 'clean resonate' and attempts to out-range them in a standard fight. They're good thoughts, but really hard to pull off. A few forces can probably get some sniping shots off as Hadross initially rolls up, but once engaged, I'd say Hadross slowly gain the advantage with their Will Attacks.

I guess the trick (like with everything else) is just to try and kill them before they can resonate and kill you.

My normal bet against Hadross would likely be to take a marker-based motivation (or hope you roll one up) that'll either spread him out or let you just grab them uncontested while he concentrates on a central cluster where his own markers are located. Then just hope you can get the advantage on motivation and kill off those few units needed before he's able to attrition his way onto his own motivation.

Another good scenario would be if the Hadross player ends up with one of those motivations that does require him to pursue your troops, then he's really forced to kinda spread out and chase you down. That might let you attempt to first strike and wipe out his units before he can plant resonate and start trying to grind through you. Well, that or he might just decide to camp on your motivation markers and wait for you to come to him.

Unless using Bannerman's Training, Deepmen are the only unit that really benefits defensively from Resonate and are able to apply it reactively. Everyone else uses it offensively, but most of them are fairly self-sufficient at it.

Gutters only have to wait for their first successful melee attack (while I use Ooroth's training, I think the Friar's Inspire is more reliable), while Bannerman can auto-resonate AoE for his Deepmen (Kaxes-led, they're a bit less of a threat). A few Frenzies are alright at doing it at least against lone targets as they're often likely to pass at least one Will check. Same with Deep Callers against whoever they're intended target is for that activation. And, Ilva just doesn't care about Resonate (or at least mine doesn't because I never use Call).

Reavers are dependent on other units, but they're able to taxi those other units with them. Both Ephramaki and the Oracle's AoEs are the main abilities that rely on others and probably the primary reasons to rinse Resonate and avoid being nuked. They're likely best found accompanying Bannerman and/or Gutters for that 1-2 punch. Though Ephramaki's non-Resonate line attack is pretty solid on its own as well.

The Cavalier needs Resonate if you want expertise, a good idea against tough targets you're trying to kill, but at least his 4-4 pull is automatic with or without Resonate and/or hit rolls.

 

[Talarius]

Noob question: Does Resonate ever expire? (Other than when the affected model takes an action to remove it) If the model that triggered the Resonate state is removed from play, is the Resonate state removed from the target? Does it ever time out naturally?

 

[Swan]

Resonate only ends when the model takes an interact to remove it, or when that model dies. It does not matter what happens to the model that triggers resonate.

 

[Mezegis]

Friendly models can remove resonate from allies they are in base to base with as well. You are not limited to only removing resonate from yourself.

 

[Swan]

I am not so sure that that is true Mezegis. I have not seen a CMoN ruling about removing resonate from allies in base. From how resonate is written, its a stretch to state that you can remove it from another.

"A model may spend an Interact Action to remove Resonate"

From that, if you assume that you can use an interact to remove resonate from another model, there seems to be no restriction, no LoS, no adjacent, no area, no on the board. Since none of those exist, it is just as easy to arrive at the conclusion that you can only remove resonate from yourself.

 

[crazedloon]

From that, if you assume that you can use an interact to remove resonate from another model, there seems to be no restriction, no LoS, no adjacent, no area, no on the board. Since none of those exist, it is just as easy to arrive at the conclusion that you can only remove resonate from yourself.

the range is actually gotten from the interact action pg.13 which states "Generally, a model must be in contact with an element to make anInteract action"

Since resonate does not change the general rule one must assume the range is BtB. But than when one takes the rules as written, which if I am not mistaken has been the designers intention to remain as strict to as written as possible, than a model can not remove its own resonance as it can not be BtB with itself. The other thing resonate does not state is if it can be removed from more than 1 model at a time, simplest answer would probably be no.

 

[Mezegis]

It has been discussed on the Wrath of Kings facebook group and Michael Shinall, one of the Cmon employees who developed the game provided the ruling.

"A model may spend an Interact Action to remove Resonate"

Interact actions by their definition are range 00, forcing you to be in base to base with the target. Since you are always in base to base with yourself, a model can spend an interact action to remove Resonate from themselves, or anyone they are in base to base with.

It comes in very handy when a unit assaults some Deepmen Guardians, you have half the active models approach and see who becomes resonated, then have the second part of the group move up and either interact to deresonate, or assist to add a die on the attack. This way the Deepmens defensive expertise does not trigger, nor does any Torvash shenanigains.​

 

[Makhina]

For the rest of us?

But thats still a problem, most of the people in forums are usually in denial. If you look across the forum you will notice a lot of people are unwilling to accept if something is too strong.

So far in our playing group, whoever is using Haddross has won every game. Resonate is too damn strong as it is right now, I think the best way to deal with it is to allow players to either forfeit their maneuver or use an interact action.

A friend of mine mentioned that maybe it should only last that turn. Making it so that you would have to re-apply it(which only takes an action to cover 13" in resonate)

Either way, tricks and misplays are not the "solution" to a design. You can't hope and pray that your opponent messes up or picks a bad objective in tournament play. And we do need tournament players as much as we need casual players.

 

[Swan]

Mexegis - thanks for updating me. The unfortunate part of this is that CMoN seems to be using two different locations to make "clarifications".

As for Hadross, they are an awesome force, and I agree a bit over powered, but not way overpowered. In our group they win more than lose, but they do lose.

So far in our group the strength of the player has been the deciding factor, not the strength of the force being played

 

[Mezegis]

I think what is happening is that Michael and the others are collecting the questions asked both here, on Facebook, and on other venues, and will be using them to build the FAQ/rules addendum. At least that is my hope.

I share your opinions on the game balance Swan. Hadross, Shael Han, and Nasier seem to be the more potent Houses due to their more forgiving nature and potent models. That said, a strong general can lead any army to victory, with dice luck and motivations playing a big part in the outcome. The game can never be truely balanced across all Houses, we have chess for that, but I think it's pretty close right now, with all factions having models that make people say "wait, that can't be right..."

 

[Talarius]

Thanks for the answer, guys. And I appreciate the extended discussion; helps get me ramped up and understanding the game better.

 

[jackfrost]

But thats still a problem, most of the people in forums are usually in denial. If you look across the forum you will notice a lot of people are unwilling to accept if something is too strong.

So far in our playing group, whoever is using Haddross has won every game. Resonate is too damn strong as it is right now, I think the best way to deal with it is to allow players to either forfeit their maneuver or use an interact action.

A friend of mine mentioned that maybe it should only last that turn. Making it so that you would have to re-apply it(which only takes an action to cover 13" in resonate)

Either way, tricks and misplays are not the "solution" to a design. You can't hope and pray that your opponent messes up or picks a bad objective in tournament play. And we do need tournament players as much as we need casual players.

Thatll stop happening as soon as tou begin abusing objectives.

Hadross has bad objective choices and is also bad at defending against many scenario goals.

When my friends figured that out i went from winning 80% to winning 50%.

 

[Makhina]

Thatll stop happening as soon as tou begin abusing objectives.

Hadross has bad objective choices and is also bad at defending against many scenario goals.

When my friends figured that out i went from winning 80% to winning 50%.

We all abuse objectives....

 

[jackfrost]

We all abuse objectives....

I didnt say "use" i said "abuse".

Next time someone plays vs hadross, pick one of the more mobile scenarios and just run across the board. The hadross player can either dominate attrition or badly run after you trying to stop you from scoring.

 

[Makhina]

I didnt say "use" i said "abuse".

Next time someone plays vs hadross, pick one of the more mobile scenarios and just run across the board. The hadross player can either dominate attrition or badly run after you trying to stop you from scoring.

Another case of "did not read" lol (I said we do abuse them, you assumed I didnt)

We have tried multiple ones (the worst ones against Haddross have been the ones where you need to attack their leaders) usually that ends up giving them the first activation. Their attrition is ungodly, and removing resonate proved to cut down our attacks on them by roughly half. In the end it was just to hard to push them all the way down to 0 morale. Keep in mind we are also playing battles, in skirmishes it was a lot closer.