Jump to content
Aaron

Gaining Grounds 2018

Recommended Posts

In GG17 we where pretty sure that Guard the Stash markers count as terrain for the likes of Phiona or Mancha Roja, why should the Supply Wagon Markers be any different now?

 

It would be very much appreciated if someone could point to any reference wether Strategy Markers can count as terrain or not :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've got one question, that someone already ask..(but i haven't found relative thread)

Collodi's marionette can share between them conditions of schemes and strategies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TeddyBear said:

i've got one question, that someone already ask..(but i haven't found relative thread)

Collodi's marionette can share between them conditions of schemes and strategies?

They can pass on all the conditions that don't expressly forbid it, which in the case of GG18 is nothing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

They can pass on all the conditions that don't expressly forbid it, which in the case of GG18 is nothing.

That's not exactly true.

I guess @TeddyBear was referring to the Shed Blood condition in Public Execution strategy. In the strategy text, it's written "This Condition cannot be gained in any way other than what is stated in this Strategy." This prevent abusing it by Collodi, since forbid that marionettes can gain that condition for free.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

That's not exactly true.

I guess @TeddyBear was referring to the Shed Blood condition in Public Execution strategy. In the strategy text, it's written "This Condition cannot be gained in any way other than what is stated in this Strategy." This prevent abusing it by Collodi, since forbid that marionettes can gain that condition for free.

What's not true? There are no conditions in GG18 that the Marionettes could pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I looked through my old files and on the 14th of November Ours was worded that "Leaders count as having a cost of 10"

and Supply Wagons had "If this Marker would enter base contact with a non-Supply Wagon Marker with one or more terrain features, remove the Marker...."

 

So, the change in the final document seems odd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SunTsu said:

References?

Models have not terrain features. And are not markers too.... They are blocking and impassable by definition, but not as a terrain trait. As someone else pointed out, there isn't a clear definition of what a "terrain marker" is (or is not).

I mean, finally I think it would work the way you described it. But by raw it's not so clear. I think it needs a FAQ or at least an official point of view...

I'm sorry but assuming it works in a way that completely breaks down the game is just silly in my opinion. There should be no doubt about wether or not you can completely remove the marker that scores VP for your enemy. Objectives can only be manipulated in ways specifically mentioned.

Edit: Models don't seem to have terrain traits, they have a specific rules making them cross each others bases. You comment had me sidetracked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I'm sorry but assuming it works in a way that completely breaks down the game is just silly in my opinion. There should be no doubt about wether or not you can completely remove the marker that scores VP for your enemy. Objectives can only be manipulated in ways specifically mentioned.

I wouldn`t call it silly as that`s the way it reads.

Yeah, it shouldn`t be that way, but that should be clear to everyone from reading the rules in the document.

It`s not my duty as a player/TO to find loopholes in the scenario description and rule them out because it would break the game.

 

Especially since we kind of did that during the playtesting phase and came up with a wording which prevented any of these questions from ever arising (see my post above).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tris Fair point, maybe they were rushed to put out the document ahead of time by a certain app. ;) I would prefer the document having the correct wordings to needing an faq. Just errata and put out the proper document, it's only been a couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

What's not true? There are no conditions in GG18 that the Marionettes could pass.

It's what I said.

You wrote: "They can pass on all the conditions that don't expressly forbid it, which in the case of GG18 is nothing." I read it as that there is no condition the marionettes can't pass. I mean, that I read your sentence as "nothing is expressly forbidden in gg2018". So I said that was not exactly true. Maybe I missunderstood your sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

It's what I said.

You wrote: "They can pass on all the conditions that don't expressly forbid it, which in the case of GG18 is nothing." I read it as that there is no condition the marionettes can't pass. I mean, that I read your sentence as "nothing is expressly forbidden in gg2018". So I said that was not exactly true. Maybe I missunderstood your sentence?

Yeah, I guess it could have been clearer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aaron said:

Supply Wagon Markers cannot be removed from the game.

Done!

Thanks.

Any chance to add that to the document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Vendetta is a 5 point scheme? I don’t think this is the intent but it reads that way and isn’t really ambiguous about it. 

 

Quote

If the noted friendly model’s first Attack Action in the game is against the notes enemy model, score 1 VP and revel this Scheme.

If the noted enemy model is not in play at the end of the game, and this Scheme has been reveled, score 1 additional VP.

If the noted enemy model is killed by the chosen friendly model, score 3 VP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vendetta is literally unchanged from how it's printed in the M2E core book (except for formatting), so nothing new in GG18 here.

That said, like all Schemes, 3 VP is the max.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

So Vendetta is a 5 point scheme? I don’t think this is the intent but it reads that way and isn’t really ambiguous about it. 

 

How is the base rulebook stating that any one scheme can only ever score 3VP in any way ambiguous? There are a number of schemes that can score each turn of the game but the general rule about never more than 3VP makes it pretty obvious you never score more than three.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

So Vendetta is a 5 point scheme? I don’t think this is the intent but it reads that way and isn’t really ambiguous about it. 

 

 

You can get infinity points from Set Up. You should always pick it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or are these strategies/ schemes getting more complicated? Even in gg 2017, I would have to read the card multiple times and still I would get something wrong. These new ones are even more complicated. I wish they would move in the opposite direction and clean up these strats and schemes up into a more simple format. For example, how about:

-kill model "X"for "X" VP

-get "x" VP for first model killed

- get "x" VP for holding an objective

- get "x" VP for most unenaged models in a  randomly drawn quadrant, etc.

Those are just examples of simpler strats and schemes that would, to me, make the game much more enjoyable.

This game is complicated enough as is. I haven't been playing it much lately due to frustration of the game and also the constant nerfing of every model I buy. I want to get back into playing, but I have a feeling this will just frustrate me more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hot4Perdita said:

Is it just me, or are these strategies/ schemes getting more complicated? Even in gg 2017, I would have to read the card multiple times and still I would get something wrong. These new ones are even more complicated. I wish they would move in the opposite direction and clean up these strats and schemes up into a more simple format. For example, how about:

-kill model "X"for "X" VP

-get "x" VP for first model killed

- get "x" VP for holding an objective

- get "x" VP for most unenaged models in a  randomly drawn quadrant, etc.

Those are just examples of simpler strats and schemes that would, to me, make the game much more enjoyable.

This game is complicated enough as is. I haven't been playing it much lately due to frustration of the game and also the constant nerfing of every model I buy. I want to get back into playing, but I have a feeling this will just frustrate me more. 

You just answered yourself. The game is complicated. There are models that could break it so its hard. They also have to offer counterplay and be interactive and can`t be based on any random factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another suggestion: On some strats, when scoring VP, flip a card. If it is weak, score one VP;  moderate, score two VP;  if severe, score 3 VP; Red joker,  score four VP;  and black joker, no VP.  This would be fun and add more randomness to the game, along with an element of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hot4Perdita said:

Another suggestion: On some strats, when scoring VP, flip a card. If it is weak, score one VP;  moderate, score two VP;  if severe, score 3 VP; Red joker,  score four VP;  and black joker, no VP.  This would be fun and add more randomness to the game, along with an element of luck.

Thats an awful suggestion. Games should be won based on decisions made and not because someone got a lucky severe or was on the right quadrant

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, trikk said:

Thats an awful suggestion. Games should be won based on decisions made. 

And it still would be. You'd still have to accomplish the strat to get to flip the card for VP. 

Adding an element like this would help balance the game, especially when playing a mediocre crew against a solid, powerful crew. I play another game that has a similar concept as this, except it uses dice instead of cards. Many VP are determined by rolling D3. I have played against powerful armies that nearly totally routed my army, but I was still in the game at the end due to scoring VP with concepts such as the random dice roll and random objectives (like schemes). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hot4Perdita said:

And it still would be. You'd still have to accomplish the strat to get to flip the card for VP. 

Adding an element like this would help balance the game, especially when playing a mediocre crew against a solid, powerful crew. I play another game that has a similar concept as this, except it uses dice instead of cards. Many VP are determined by rolling D3. I have played against powerful armies that nearly totally routed my army, but I was still in the game at the end due to scoring VP with concepts such as the random dice roll and random objectives (like schemes). 

If you have a meh crew and the other guy has a powerful crew he should win unless he plays badly. This is luck based scoring because I can play better and flip VP worse and lose the game. From a competitive point of view its an awful solution. I think there was an idea for a strategy with some flips and almost everybody hated it (even a lot of casual players)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading more of these strategies, I'm scratching my head. The strategy with the table quarters, now instead of most models in a quarter, its most soulstone cost in a quarter. Do they realize how much of a pain it will be to keep track of that? It's easy to count individual models, but to keep counting and keeping a sum of different models for you and your opponent turn after turn? They just added about an hour to a typical game with that one. 

And no more always available Claim Jump? That was one you could always count on going into a game. Knowing claim Jump was always available, I could build a crew to be able to accomplish it every time, leaving me only two other strat/scheme to worry about come gametime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, trikk said:

If you have a meh crew and the other guy has a powerful crew he should win unless he plays badly. This is luck based scoring because I can play better and flip VP worse and lose the game. From a competitive point of view its an awful solution. I think there was an idea for a strategy with some flips and almost everybody hated it (even a lot of casual players)

That's the whole idea, since Malifaux is not very balanced, and has powerful crews and weak crews, it would allow a weak crew a chance to win against a powerful crew. Hence, it would add balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×