Gaining Grounds 2018 and The Future of Schemes

[Flib Jib]

Hello Friends,

I want to begin by stating that I am in no way associated in the choices or direction Wyrd takes their games. I’m just a loyal dude who enjoys their games and am curious of what the future holds.

That said, I had a fun idea during a four-hour drive home from a tournament. A friend and I carpooled and had been talking about the changes and refinements made over the last two years and coincidentally we then listened to Max Value’s podcast about the very same thing and that sparked an idea, here’s the preface.

 

So I love this game because of the decisions!

• There are decisions in just about every step. 
• The decisions aren't obvious choices but often present thought-provoking and equally beneficial or detrimental choices. 
• The decisions almost always have a caveat and are not wholly beneficial, ‘do + but at a cost of -’

With this in mind there is one step that doesn’t have an ‘options’ phase rather a ‘resolve’ phase and that is the scoring VP or specifically the schemes. The idea I had was if the game introduced yet another critical thinking phase when scoring, would it be game breaking if players had options?

 

Some examples that came to mind; what if future schemes were written like so:

Quote

Detonate the Charges: 
At the end of any Turn after the first, this Crew may choose to remove all scheme markers within 3” of an enemy model. For every Scheme marker removed in this way, ALL Models within 3” must take a 2/3/4 Damage flip that cannot be cheated or reduced. This Crew earns 1 VP for each enemy non-Peon model damaged.

 

Quote

Masquerade (Accusation!)

This Scheme may not start revealed.

All non-Peon models in this Crew gain the following Attach Action:
(1) May I see your Invitation: (Ca: 6 / Rst: Wp / Rg: 6): Target an enemy non-Peon model. After Succeeding, target model gains the following Condition until the end of the turn:

Faux Pas +1: At the beginning of this model's activation it may discard a card to lower the Faux Pas condition by 1. 

The first time an enemy model gains the Faux Pas Condition, reveal this Scheme. At the end of every Turn after the first, this crew may do one of the following:

End the Faux Pas Condition on one Enemy model in play to gain 1 VP. Enemy Model then gains the Condition, “Guest of Honor” This model is immune to the Faux Pas Condition.

End the Faux Pas Condition on all models. Models that had the Faux Pas condition removed in this way gain slow.

 

Quote

Grand Larceny (Recover Evidence) 

This Scheme may not start revealed.

You may reveal this Scheme at the beginning of any Turn. After revealing this Scheme, the opponent places 6 Crown Jewel Markers on the center line not within 2” of each.
All non-peon models in this crew gain the following action:

(1) Burgle: (Ca 6 / TN: 12 / Rg: 1): Remove a target Crown Jewel Marker. This model gains the following Condition for the rest of the game:

Suspicious: This model receives -2 to WP and receives the following Action: “(1) Now Pay Up: If this model is in its deployment zone it may take a TN 10 Wp; Duel to remove the Suspicious Condition.” No other Action or Ability can remove this Condition.

Victory Points
At the end of every Turn after the first, this Crew gains 1 VP for every Suspicious condition removed. 

 

 

I really love how Malifaux has so many fun choices and thought choices during the scoring phase might keep Gaining Grounds ‘fresh’ and not just a rehash from past years. What are your thoughts? I would love to read your ideas of fun schemes that might have options during the VP Scoring phase.

 

 

Here's the Max Value podcast I referenced

[Ludvig]

On detonate: why would I select a scheme that didn't give me VP? Seems like a sure way to loose.

 

If extra stuff was to be introduced I would prefer if they instead added something like the shindig rules from story missions where everyone gets access to something unique regardless of schemes selected. I guess that wouldn't give the options you are after... Bad idea 

[Flib Jib]

16 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

On detonate: why would I select a scheme that didn't give me VP? Seems like a sure way to loose.

Good Catch, I reworked the wording by adding the VP condition 

[Dogmantra]

Hrm, it's an interesting idea, I think the extra decisions have a place already that hasn't been utilised in Gaining Grounds yet: the reveal step. I think I remember Aaron saying he tried some stuff like that with GG2017 but it didn't pan out? I'd worry about tying points to a single one-time damage flip though, just because schemes up to this point are pretty deterministic or at least let you have another go if you fail (like at Assassinate - dealing 0 damage in one hit doesn't disqualify you), and getting permanently screwed out of a point because of a BJ would probably feel worse than usual.

 

Personally I think the biggest change that would benefit schemes and prevent stagnation is to do something about the Always Scheme. It's been a problem for a long time, with certain crews just being way too good at it to the point that it's not even a choice to take it (see: Colette for ALitS), and it also can lead to more of a fixed list scenario because there's less variance in scenario if you know you're taking the always scheme. I think a variable Always would be good for the game, or even getting rid of it entirely and just ensuring there's always a use for Scheme Markers with some clever scheme choices.

[Ludvig]

You could have five different subsets where a flip decided which scheme out of maybe four available for that "slot" was chosen so 1/4 condition schemes but you don't know which etc. Might be boring to always have one of each type (but a lot of players might prefer it to the current system). You could also just give all the schemes numbers so they were equally common but have "red" and "black" for each number if you wanted to fit more schemes in. Maybe you had one default scheme for 4 and if you flipped another 4 you added another scheme (so slightly rarer) but then you would probably reflip if you flipped four 4s.

[Dogmantra]

Well if we're brainstorming new flipping methods, I thought you could get rid of the always scheme and flip three cards. You'd have a triples scheme for either the third of a kind or the second double (if I'm right you wouldn't need more). If adding a sixth scheme was too much, then you could add a little more decision making by making each card's contribution mutually exclusive (e.g. if you flip the 7 of tomes you can only pick 7 or tomes)

[Ludvig]

If the schemes are mutually exclusive isn't that less options? The decision might be hard but you could also just be removing options and choices since some combos will suck. It's doubtful if it would be doable to balance it so some combos don't just feel impossible to some crews and auto takes for others.

[Dogmantra]

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

If the schemes are mutually exclusive isn't that less options? The decision might be hard but you could also just be removing options and choices since some combos will suck. It's doubtful if it would be doable to balance it so some combos don't just feel impossible to some crews and auto takes for others.

Yeah I don't know if it would be that good in play and the fact that some combos would just suck is pretty much why I suggested it more as an addendum. In a perfect world it could add an interesting decision where you juggle the question of whether you want a particular scheme if that means you're locked out of the other. I think that kind of decision is probably better suited to something with different outcomes than the same outcome from different sources (e.g. 3 points from a scheme)

[Fetid Strumpet]

Or just make a double large scheme list, a red and black and just flip 5 cards and get rid of always available and suited.

[Steven70]

I have thought about schemes that would hinder your opponents hand or deployment. If they had to reduce their hand size by 3 on 3 turns of your choice and didn't score 1 VP per turn. Or redeploy from standard to corner for example, after set up and didn't, you would gain 1VP. A scheme to poison a model BEFORE deployment or make a opponent switch a scheme to your choice (Traitor)  Some other options in scoring for crews that use game mechanics more.  I do like the idea of adding other choices in the scoring phase.  I also like the above the table options too.

[Fetid Strumpet]

As a side note I'd like for the new schemes to be relatively consistent in effect. Meaning just like in GG 2016 if a scheme relies on a condition and you are given it, then no action, ability, power, or rules loop hole will let you remove that condition, except through means the scheme itself specifies.

Additionally I'd like it so that if a condition is part of a scheme than no action, abilility, power, or rules loop hole will let you avoid being given the condition as long as the requirements of the scheme itself are fulfilled.