Jump to content

Kadeton

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

About Kadeton

  • Rank
    Angst Bunny
  • Birthday 12/29/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Hold Up Their Forces

    Making the wording for this scheme both clear and unambiguous is surprisingly tricky. Perhaps something like: At the end of every Turn after the first, score 1 VP if a friendly non-Peon model is engaged with two or more enemy models, and at least two of those enemy models are not engaged by any other friendly models.
  2. A Final Plea for GG2018

    That's a good point. I would like to see some indication of which Scheme to use on the Strategy cards, though. (More than just having the same suit icon - names would be nice).
  3. A Final Plea for GG2018

    I'm glad that the simplicity of dealing from the Scheme deck is largely retained. If the Strategy and its paired Always Scheme could be printed on the same card, that would be ideal (in my opinion) though I accept that space requirements might not allow it. Either way, I think this is a good solution that addresses the major concerns.
  4. Symbols of Authority

    If we're making a distinction between friendly and enemy markers, we might as well use the same language when targeting them, i.e. Target an enemy Strategy Marker within 1" rather than Target a Strategy Marker within 1" on the opponent's side of the board. Save some words. Wholly on your side of the board could also be extended to clear the midfield, like not within 2" of the centerline or similar.
  5. Immidiately or not, timing question

    Rather than an abstract case, can you give specific examples of some effects that have the same timing, but where one says "immediately"? It will be easier for people to answer if they understand what you're referencing.
  6. Guarded Treasure 9.29

    Yes, that's a better way of putting it, and sums up my issues with it very neatly.
  7. Guarded Treasure 9.29

    This version of the scheme seems much easier, to the extent that I think the difficulty pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. I would have been happier with either opening it to Minions or scoring from Turn 2, not both. Thematically, I don't like the requirement to be unengaged. Are you guarding this treasure, or just hanging out nearby and trying to avoid getting noticed by the people who you're supposed to be guarding it from? Arguably, someone who is guarding a treasure is doing a better job if they're engaged. This version could perhaps be called "Casually Observed Treasure". The approach to this scheme has changed dramatically as a result of these changes. Previously, the limited availability of high-station models meant that you were encouraged to drop your scheme markers early and then use your big tanks to guard them against all comers. Now, similar to previous Always schemes, the most effective approach is to out-activate your opponent, then run Minions up to unoccupied areas of the centerline and drop two Markers at the end of the turn. I hope to see some of those former elements creep back into the scheme as it's adjusted.
  8. Supply Wagons 10/10

    So... it seems to me that Wagon Jousting is now a thing? If you push your Wagon into the opponent's, their Wagon (which is an Impassable Terrain Marker) gets obliterated and you deny them any further scoring opportunities. Don't get me wrong, it actually sounds pretty fun and silly which is probably fine for a Joker scheme, I just wanted to check that it was intended. This section of the strategy is a bit incoherent and could do with some rewording.
  9. Guarded Treasure 9.29

    I'm actually kind of curious which Factions you expect to be at a disadvantage. Which ones do you think have particularly strong cheap Enforcers, and which are particularly weak? There are always lots of complaints. I don't really agree that the game has become "fairer" per se. There's less envious complaining about other factions' toys, perhaps, now that everyone has something of their own in every niche, but I don't think there has been any noticeable shift in the factional dominance at the tournament level as a result of adding cheap schemers to the factions that were lacking them before. That's an interesting take, but I'm not sure it holds up. If you have to choose between Chiaki and a Torakage, for example, you're making a ton of other tradeoffs in terms of mobility, combat power, utility - I really don't think it's a simple case of "Enforcer good, Minion bad". Still, you're right that this will shape the meta. While we might not see as many expensive Minions (given that we already don't see much of them, other than a standout few taken primarily for their combat abilities, like Illuminated), we should hopefully see more of the cheaper Enforcers. I do take your point about bluffing - I've just never found it to be that big a part of the game. Is Chiaki coming back to Guard that Treasure? Who cares, either way I'm going to try to stop her by sending a killer in her direction. She'll either get away and score whichever scheme she has, or she won't... I can't actually do much more about it.
  10. Symbols of Authority and terrain

    Hmm. Can you give an example? I've seen some wacky terrain in my time, but I'm struggling to think of any that would fit your description, allowing a Symbol to be placed while making it totally inaccessible. I think at that point the problem shifts more to the TO's responsibility not to screw up the board with terrible terrain. "Reached by normal movement" is just such a difficult thing to define. If a model could get to the marker but would take eight turns of movement to do so, can it still be reached? How about if the model had to move through hazardous terrain that would likely kill it? Is there a "normal" model with specific Wk and Wd values we can use to determine whether a marker meets the criteria? Trying to plan for every crazy eventuality just leads to over-thinking the problem, honestly. At some point, you have to shift some of the responsibility around what is "reasonable" back onto the TO and the players, and just keep things simple.
  11. Symbols of Authority and terrain

    You definitely could, yeah. I assumed it was intended to be able to place it in the middle of a forest or a swamp as an additional challenge for the opponent, and I quite like that option, but I don't really want to see them on top of towers or whatever. But not touching terrain at all would be fine too, and certainly easier as a blanket restriction.
  12. Symbols of Authority and terrain

    That seems like it's going to spawn inevitable FAQs to me. Something like "not touching Impassable terrain" would probably be sufficient.
  13. Guarded Treasure 9.29

    I don't feel like 5ss vs 6ss is enough of a difference to get worked up about, honestly. There was a long period at the start of the edition where some Factions had great 4ss Minions and others had crappy 5ss Minions as their preferred scheme runners, but everyone got along okay. In this scheme, the requirement to be right up near the centerline on Turn 3 should go some way toward balancing out cheaper models - the resilience of higher-station models tends to scale significantly with cost. The Oxfordians you mentioned, for example, aren't likely to want to hang around on the front lines, while tougher 8-10ss Enforcers and Henchmen can get up in the enemy's face just fine. "In this meta" feels like severely overstating the case, to be honest. "In a crew attempting this scheme" is probably closer to the truth, though even then there's another scheme and a strategy that those expensive Minions could be doing. I'd look at this more as creating a specific niche for those scheme-focused Enforcers (like the Guild Sergeants you mentioned above) that currently don't see a lot of table time. If "this meta" turns out to be one in which everyone is still trying to build one-size-fits-all crews that always take the Always scheme, then the broader statement could be true... but that's exactly what this scheme is attempting to discourage, by design.
  14. I do think it was a very strange design choice to go with the Peon characteristic and the Insignificant ability as the two sides of the same "doesn't contribute to strategies and schemes" coin. It seems like those could have been combined into a single characteristic (Peon) without the need to clutter up the rules with "non-Insignificant non-Peons" and the like - there are very few cases where it's relevant that you have a non-Insignificant Peon or an Insignificant non-Peon, and in all those cases it wouldn't really matter if the two were combined anyway. I'm a bit wary of the idea that Peon should always be a detriment. I realise that Hamelin isn't very popular in the wake of GG2017, for example, but I don't think he deserves quite so much of a kicking as it would be to make his Rats count for Inescapable Trap, Public Executions, and so on. Publicly executing a rat really doesn't send as strong a message as publicly executing an actual person. (On the other hand, you can still Ply them for Information, which is a pretty funny image.)
  15. Homefront Questions

    Are you looking for consequences more dire than "they don't get to exist"?
×