Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Goret

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/09/1977

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

412 profile views
  1. Guarded Treasure non-Enforcers?

    I am impressed, scheme looks good. needs testing as it looks pretty hard to do even for elite crews, but on paper it seems to do what was intended, winch is promoting elite crews, and not being picked every game..
  2. Ply for Information and Symbols of Authority are a step in the wrong direction if activation control is a problem that needs tacking in gg18. They make things worse, not better.
  3. Suited Schemes and Meta Control

    Symbols uses 50mm ht5 impassable blocking markers. Unlike squatters, where you can park one model next or on top to a marker to prenvent interactions with it, in Symbols it will be hard to defend / have board control with elite crews. So in the end, it will still favor more activations rather than fewer, both to defend your markers and to take markers Ours and it's predecessors have always favored large crews and summoners. This might be better, but it still falls into the category of "more activation (even summons) is better than fewer". I think that being able to only ply on models that have not yet activate might help, i still don't like the part with the suffering damage.
  4. Suited Schemes and Meta Control

    Right now the new strats favor activation control and on top are double punishing as only one player will score points from the strat. Ply for Information gives a huge advantage to the player out-activating the opponent and only 1 player will score points. Symbols of authority gives a huge advantage to out activating your opponent. Especially with leap/place/push effects. Ours still favors activation control as you can move scoring models around to help denying the strat points to your opponent after he can't move any models anymore Guard the stash and extraction did not care about activation control so much, at least you could not deny your opponent points as easily unless you had push/move effets. If we replace strategies (and schemes) which in gg17 did not directly favor many activation's, it will only get worse in gg18. @Kadeton Maybe a scheme scoring after any player has activated his last model would be an option for certain schemes. As for suited schemes, i would rather see a single suited scheme + numbered schemes than 1 always scheme + 4 numbered schemes in a pool.
  5. New Scheme Idea

    I like the idea of not having suited schemes next to the aa scheme anymore. I would rather see the AA scheme linked to a strategy rather than a month. As for the pairing , i don't have an informed decision right now. It might be good for scheme balance, but maybe not as good for pool variety. If pairing would be the way forward, i would then pick 4 "AA type" schemes and put them on suits. In this case, a pool would have 1 suited scheme, and 4 paired schemes (2x2) and no AA scheme.
  6. Take one for the team

    There is "better than others" and there is free vp. Arcanists were not better than others at leave your mark with raptors and practiced production, it was free VP for them, even though technically you could deny it, in reality you could not. You can't reliably resist CA7 obeys with your 4-7 wp models. It's free VP, falling in the same category as the old raptor+practiced production or the piggapult lobbing models across the board. Unless i am mistaken about the intention behind this scheme, it is not working as intended, namely getting your opponent to kill a specific model in your crew.
  7. Take one for the team

    Could we add the wording "controlled by an enemy crew", so that obeys can't score you 3vp on turn 1? If the chosen “sucker” model is killed or sacrificed by an enemy model controlled by an enemy crew, score 1 VP. You could just change "enemy model" to "enemy crew", but then you would not be able to deny the scheme with obey anymore. Whenever i played with Zoraida, FFM were auto 3 VP for the cost of a whisp. And Zoraida is not the only model able to score like that. As in "take one for the team" a higher soulstone model will give up 3vp, this will be even easier.
  8. New Designer - Matt

    Congratulations, good luck and enjoy. (Hope you brought a coat, shitstorm has starter ).
  9. Musing on Always Scheme

    Activation control denies this scheme though. Especially summoners like molly, sandeep and the like will deny this scheme hard. But maybe that would be fine? Lately, i have come to think that if Aaron would want to errata Aionus so that he doesnt drop enemy scheme markers next to himself, a refined form of collect evidence would make a good always scheme? Not sure if i am overlooking other models droping enemy markers next to themselves.
  10. Belles or Doxies

    Both! Why would you have to chose? Rotten Belles are less ressource intensive and obviously better at moving models over large distances. Doxies have a higher TN and might compete for that 7 with other TN abilities your models will have, but her push has more uses and the occasional awesome trigger to boot. Having them die also gives out fast which is amazing. I like to summon doxies with molly, especially if my model will come out with 1 wd or i need a push or i don't have the 11 for a Punk Zombie. Often, Molly/Archie/Val/Rogue ends up with the Fast condition or the doxie is ignored on purpose by my opponent.
  11. Supply Wagons

    Why not just use any good or popular strategy out of GG15 or rulebook for rotations and leave the worse iterations of the same strategy behind. The text could make it into the document even if they are in the rulebook.
  12. Challenge

    What if you would not need to challenge anyone, score a vp if a model killed a model of the same type? Minion - Minion, Enforcer - Enforcer, Henchman - Henchman, Master - Master? Or just someone equal or higher up in the food chain.
  13. Charge Soulstone

    I don't like this scheme. Firstly, soulstones are already a valuable ressource allowing you to diminish randomness. Having them used to score vp is counterproductive. So imo, SS's should not be use to score vp's. Secondly, where is the interaction between players here? How do you deny this scheme? All your opponent needs to do is kill a model while a henchman or a master is around. So basically what he has to do anyway. It's just easy VP at the cost of a strategic ressource used to play the game. This is not fun and a nobrainer decision to make limiting your choices ingame.
  14. Collect Evidence

    Let's asume Aionus does not exist. In this case, the only way this scheme could work is if it was the always scheme. It would be doable against certain marker shitting crews and in any scheme pool where you have at least 1-2 schememarker schemes. But it will still be very hard to achieve in most situations and be very risky. People will find a way drop 1 unreachable marker, or stand on it with a 40mm or 50mm base like the piggapult and not drop any other markers. That said, the fact that Aionus exists and can drop markers next to himself and pick them up makes this scheme pretty useless.
  15. Summoners into GG2018

    I don't understand why one would go down that messy route with condition tracking and tons of exceptions like this model that replaces himself and that model cause he sacrifices something in order to do so. If summoned models are a problem, why not make more schemes dissuading summoning models? Depending on the pool you get, you might opt not to take your summoner THIS time. In GG16, i was almost always giving up 3vp due to hunting party being in the suits and i was absolutely fine with it. I knew i would be giving up free vp and tried to work around it by focusing on or disabling Enforcers and Henchman before they could score or by killing off my own low wound models if that meant denying a point). If Interference or whatever the new name is, is the problem, why not change it so that summoned models which most often than not are minions are not as useful for the said strategy. Now we got the ss cost system to determine if you are holding a table quarter. You could use the collect the bounty method. peon 0, minion 1, enforcer 2 henchman 3, master 4. If they count for only 33% of a Henchman or 25% of a master, will 4 summoned minions really have that much of an impact now? If activation control is the problem, make more schemes like Exhaust, where you need to put conditions on models that have not activated yet. (Btw, this unplanted condition won't change much to the problem of activation control) And finally, if this really has to be changed, just add to the summoning rule that summoned models don't count for strategy purpose the turn they are summoned. The next turn, the opponent should have enough time to deal with them if he thinks he has to. There is imo so much more you can achieve by changing strat and schemes to balance out summoning; favoring it in some situations and penalizing it in others.