10th Regiment of Foot Revealed

[Euryon]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Did you really think you were quick enough to double post in a thread like this?

You managed it

[Hero Hot Hatch]

Originally Posted by Revdyer

Yep. About five points more. Nicely said, Eclipse.

Stating that they are a little more flexible offensively is and understatement. Had their defensive ability not been limited to adjacent attacks, they would be significantly better overall and not just slightly better. The designers had to give that up and limit it to adjacent attacks to offset the fact that they are materially more flexible offensively. That makes them a hybrid squad.

If you still don't understand what I mean, I'll write it differently. You'll have more tactical options when taking turns with these guys (which means that you are generally at the offensive) including a higher flexibility to move with the 10th than with the 4th. I mean you can choose to engage for whatever strategy you're trying to pull and still don't loose the Wait then fire bonus (indirectly) and get the same defense the 4th would engaged or not in a valiant army (or more in a non-valiant army). The offseting factor is the lower defense against range (assuming the 4th is in a valiant army); otherwise, the 10th would cost much more over the 4th than the 5 points they do.

[SabastianBludd]

Originally Posted by Eclipse

Marcus would probably be a better choice over all though. Sure you eat 10 points but granting +1 move to your entire army is pretty amazing, particularly with the Sacred Band's low move.

I couldn't resist including Valguard when I realized that the cost of the 10th Foot makes it possible to build (what appears to be) a viable 500 pt. army with one of the least-used units in Heroscape.

But yeah, you're right, Marcus would really make this army shine. Still no love for Valguard.

Modified build:
2x 10th Foot 150
3x SB 150
Marcus 100
Parmenio 90
Isamu 10

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Euryon

You managed it

I'm awesome that way.

[theodorelogan]

If you still don't understand what I mean, I'll write it differently. You'll have more tactical options when taking turns with these guys, which means that you are at the offensive, including a higher flexibility to move with the 10th than with the 4th. I mean you can choose to engage for whatever strategy you're trying to pull and still don't loose the Wait then fire bonus (indirectly) and get the same defense the 4th would engaged or not in a valiant army. The offseting factor is the lower defense against range (assuming the 4th is in a valiant army); otherwise, the 10th would cost much more over the 4th than the 5 points they do.

That's an excellent way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that the 10th are 3/3 units in melee and 3/2 units (with WTF) in range. the 4th are 2/2* units in melee and 3/2* in range.

* - unless army is all valiant.

[IAmBatman]

Why would the 4th ever be 2/2 in melee? If they're in melee, they're stupid to move, so WTF would be applicable. The only time it'd come up is if they wanted to move around in melee for better positioning (height advantage, etc) or if they were making the initial charge into melee. In most melee situations, though, the 4th would still have that 3rd attack die.
They'd also be in all valiant armies in most situations since there's more than enough competitive valiant units out there to complement them.

[Soul Shackle]

Originally Posted by Revdyer

Actually, that's not quite true. Part of our options is to trust that the game designers knew what they were doing and have produced another mostly balanced and great to play expansion for the game. (I'm not saying we can't question all of this, but my experience, so far, has been that, mostly, these folks do know what they're doing.)

If we're basing opinions on that trust, wouldn't it make sense to reasonably assume the 10th are generally more valuable to an army, albeit only slightly? They made the 10th cost more than the MM, not us.

[Euryon]

Ignore post.

[theodorelogan]

Why would the 4th ever be 2/2 in melee? If they're in melee, they're stupid to move, so WTF would be applicable. The only time it'd come up is if they wanted to move around in melee for better positioning (height advantage, etc) or if they were making the initial charge into melee. In most melee situations, though, the 4th would still have that 3rd attack die.

Good point. I guess then the benefit is that you can keep moving the 10th regiment up to attack.

They'd also be in all valiant armies in most situations since there's more than enough competitive valiant units out there to complement them.

This I do not agree with. I see 4th Mass in many tournament armies, but the majority of the time it is not in all valiant armies.

[Revdyer]

Originally Posted by Soul Shackle

If we're basing opinions on that trust, wouldn't it make sense to reasonably assume the 10th are generally more valuable to an army, albeit only slightly? They made the 10th cost more than the MM, not us.

Well, in fact, Soul Shackle, that would be my sensible assumption. I, of course, reserve the right to say, later, after experience, that my assumption was false. But here, at the beginning of the introduction of a new unit (or set of units), my assumption is that it fits well into the existing game. Were that not my assumption, I think I'd be looking for a better game.

edit: I've not found, in my whole life, a better game.

[Soul Shackle]

You know what happens when we assume, Rev...

[IAmBatman]

I think your experience and mine differ, then. I can't imagine anyone building a tourney army around the 4th Mass and not having it be all-Valiant. That just seems like a waste of one of their biggest assets, IMO. Sure, you miss out on the opportunity to use some insanely good (annoying) figures like Q9, Raelin, and the Rats, but you can fit more 4th Mass into your army instead and give them a lot more staying power with that extra defensive die.