Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lots of people on the PP forums are freaking out. They are convinced that everyone is going to just auto-lose to Kara Sloan because they've peaked at her new card and have concocted a way in which 9 hunters can all somehow see the opposing caster and shoot em dead before they even get to move a model.

People trying to argue the doom and gloom have been saying that you can just block line of site to your model in the deployment phase.. Well, sure, but has anyone actually done the math on the assassination? http://midwestwargaming.com/mk3-sloan-top-1-assassination/

If there is ANY chance of "Top of 1 assignation", the claim of "balance", and "extensively play tested", falls under a long shodow of doubt.

These numbers are all based off of the assumption that there is no basic change to the Hunter from Mk2 (it keeps leash, pathfinder, 14" range and, AP). It also assumes that all nine hunters can get line of sight and range to the opposing caster. It also presumes perfect placement of all the models involved. In reality you probably can't get more than 3 or 4 shots into a caster and that's not going to kill anyone barring a lot of 6's showing up.

For the record against Sevy2 he has ARM 14 and 16 boxes. If he is hit 7 times he negates one hit entirely by spending a focus. The other 6 hits are at dice minus 6 (Hunter POW6 vs ARM 7 + 5 per focus spent). Those six remaining shots would need to average 8.7 points each to kill him.

Even the page sited says that the odds are poor to kill the squishiest of casters and fails to point out that the nine hunters would be the entire army + Kara (nothing else on the board for the Cygnar player). If someone were to take this army and acutally try this tactic then the game is over. If they pull it off they win. If they fail then they are dead in the water and may as well concede the game.

There is an easy counter to this whole thing. Just set your caster up at 6.99" and the assassination can't happen.

In Mk2 there was always the chance of a bottom of turn 1 assassination from a few different models. It's not really a whole lot of difference.

Having seen the leaks for Cygnar. The hunter is exactly the same. Even better as AP attacks now half the armour of all models.


I'm not quite so worry about top of one assassinations. I'm more concerned about bottom of one.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
... fails to point out that the nine hunters would be the entire army + Kara (nothing else on the board for the Cygnar player). If someone were to take this army and acutally try this tactic then the game is over. If they pull it off they win. If they fail then they are dead in the water and may as well concede the game.

There is an easy counter to this whole thing. Just set your caster up at 6.99" and the assassination can't happen.

In Mk2 there was always the chance of a bottom of turn 1 assassination from a few different models. It's not really a whole lot of difference.

The problem with setting up your caster at 6.9" off the back edge of the table is that with premeasuring the Cygnar player will never pop their feat and waste it like you could sometimes bait a Ravyn or Lyllyth2 player into doing. Though I agree that Sloan + 9x hunters is a bad list; 2x Hunters, 2x Defenders, a Centurion and Trenchers is a much nastier list at least in Dojo, IMHO. I think once the new hotness of the list is removed I think she'll be best when her feat is held in reserve. If you've got >2 ranged jacks and the feat sitting in your back pocket on turn 3 or 4 your opponent is going to be hesitant to move their caster forward.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Having seen the leaks for Cygnar. The hunter is exactly the same. Even better as AP attacks now half the armour of all models.


I'm not quite so worry about top of one assassinations. I'm more concerned about bottom of one.

The Hunter did lose Parry.

I'll be amazed if this ever happens, sure, the math does say it's possible, but in an actual game, there are too many things that can go wrong for the top of 1 assassination, even if you place your models just right. This needs perfect positioning for you and your opponent, and if anyone saw you bring Sloan and 9 hunters, I think they'd get the picture. This also assumes you have good rolls. We all know how common a good plan is destroyed by bad rolls and that's true in every game, but here, with so many things that need to go just right, it's just impractical at best IMO.

4zero6 wrote:
If there is ANY chance of "Top of 1 assignation", the claim of "balance", and "extensively play tested", falls under a long shodow of doubt.

Other thing you have to realize too, how many people are really going to try this? A list like that in a tourney setting has tons of flaws... something most people wont be willing to deal with if something goes "SLIGHTLY" wrong, wont work. Most people I play with don't tend to play super duper try hard lists anyways, and if you have someone in your local group who brings crap like that constantly, there's a really easy solution : stop playing them if you're that worried about playing against ONE LIST. They will cut that out pretty quick, in general, I can say out of everyone I've met, they just enjoy playing the game. The reason PP can claim balance is prolly because the also try to enjoy the game, and not spam gimmicky trash, but hey maybe that's just how I feel. End of rant

I am missing something. 7" deployment, 6"AD, 6" Move, 14" RNG, 2" for Fire Group spell=35" from your edge, 3" short of opponents DZ. Unless the caster is Advanced Deploy, how are can you cover the other 6"?

I think they're errata'ing this on release, right?

 RiTides wrote:
I think they're errata'ing this on release, right?

I saw Jay from Chain Attack tweet that they are, making the extra attack have to happen during their activation.

 tdwg83 wrote:
I am missing something. 7" deployment, 6"AD, 6" Move, 14" RNG, 2" for Fire Group spell=35" from your edge, 3" short of opponents DZ. Unless the caster is Advanced Deploy, how are can you cover the other 6"?

It's moot now that the feat has been errata'd; but they were running Turn 1 not advancing.

The errata is coming out June 29th I believe, it's out the new edition is formally released.

I think the math also assumed deployment zones were 10".