Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SunTsu last won the day on September 26 2018

SunTsu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

500 Mondo Bodacious

About SunTsu

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/15/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The problem with corrupted idols is not so simple. There are same issue that should be fixed before that, as I and others said elsewhere... However, by RAW, a marker can be placed inside terrain if not explicitly forbidden. So by rules you place the marker inside impassable area (that finally could mean not placing it).
  2. I like the fact that now we have few effective upgrades, while in m2e we had a lot of unuseful upgrades. But from the very strat of this game design choice, I had some issues about it. In my mind, having so few upgrades should mean that most of them should be effective, if not for all models in a faction, at least at the most part. Formally it works this way. Instead some upgrades are by fact restricted to a minor number of models. I'll write an example to make my thoughts clearer, using Arcanist's Soulstone Cache upgrade as model: Now, this upgrades have no formal restriction that limit who can buy this. On the other hand, it's a fact that this upgrade will see play only on a small subset of models. The problem is that the cost of the upgrade is calculated considering all the abilities on it as effective. So if a master/henchman would buy this one it would spend 2ss to get just a single ability: I don't think it would never happen. The same for a model that have some ability that let it using ss. The reason is that these models finally would overpay this upgrade, because for the same cost they get less than other models. The same concept behind rewarding minions is not completely embraceable in my mind: while in m2e there was largely true that minions were the more fragile models, now in m3e the concept of stations changed completely (even if this transition was not fully completed, imvvvho). Now minions are simply the models whith plentiful, while enforcer/hench/master are those unique models. I don't completely like this change, but that's another discussion... For the purpose of upgrades disquisition instead, all upgrades tend to reward minions giving them a free ability: I think it's not always fair, because there are same strong heavy minion that benefit from a bonus thought to give an edge to small fragile models, and some enforcers that are really fragile and weak models in game term. For example, there are many totems that are little weak enforcer models, while some minions are very tough big guys. So the problem here, from my perspective, is that we have a rigid upgrade's design, and that some strong models get a bonus that should go only to weaker ones. I have some ideas to how change this, and I will write some examples of them: 1- let's make upgrades cheaper for those models that cannot use one ability the upgrade provides: for example if a model that can use ss by itself would hire "Soulstone Cache", it could pay it only 1ss instead of 2ss. This would increase the number of models that would buy a particular upgrade in practice; 2- another way to make things more flexible and less rigid, could be by don't specify wich ability get minions or non-minions models. Something like: "This upgrade cost 1ss, and the model can choose one of the following 3 abilities. If the model spend +1ss it can choose +1 ability. If the model is a minion it can choose +1 ability." In this way a minion could get 2 ability paying just 1ss, or the full 3 paying all 2ss, while a non-minion model could get 1 ability for 1ss, or 2 abilities for 2ss. This for example would let an henchman/master buy "Soulstone Cache", because it can avoid to pay for the attuned ability it already owns; 3- remove completely 'minion' as a parameter, in favor of a "cost-less-then-X" statement. For example, instead of 'minion' condition, the upgrade could say: "If this model costs 6ss or less, it also gains the following Ability:". This would more effectively reward weaker models than the 'minion' stipulation do, imo. Any ideas???
  3. Well, obviously it's a simultaneaus process here. You usually should put apart the card/miniature of the master you choosed (or write it on a paper) and then both the opponents reveal their choice. In casual games you can play it differently: I often ask to my opponent if he wants to play against a particular crew/master. But in competitive games no one should choose after the opponent revealed his choice...
  4. Really I'm fine with some masters having 1-2 "forbidden" factions. I would have a problem if that master would be hard countered by an high number of factions. Imo, if each faction have at least 5-6 masters viable against any other faction, and each master have no more than 1-2 factions against whom I would never use it, the things are fine. It's because if a master isn't competitive against not more than 1-2 factions, but it remains competitive vs the othes 4-5, it will be granted enough playtime onto the tables.
  5. Changing that particular rule don't imply in any way to don't use 3d anymore...
  6. I disagree. And not just because your wording doesn't change nothing in how to apply thi rule. Here we have a statement that doesn't add nothing to the game, but complexity and some weird unexpected situations... There are problems and problems. Maybe there isn't a technical problem, but for sure there's a game design problem. This rule hit the table in so few corner case scanarios, that it would be difficult to build a tactic around this. It's a rule that will go undernoticed for most players. So first of all it will require a FAQ for sure. Than it will be missplayed very often, or because the players will forget about that strange-weird-corner-case-situation, or because they simply ignore that. In those rare cases where it will be played right, it would create that unpleasant "gotcha!" effect that m3e is fighting against so hard... However, imo here we have also a bad written rule from a technical point of view, since it's not clear when you have to apply that conditional "may", and it collide with the assumption (made even in the m3e rulebook even if not explicitly said) that the los is a two-way effect, as @solkan pointed out correctly: So finally, my question is: why we want to keep a rule like this in m3e? Which positive effect or nice game experience adds to the game?
  7. Infact I tryed to simplify the things in order to make them simpler, but keeping the same "flavor" of the original strategy. Linking the place to losing initiative could give different issues, so I would not suggest it. For example players could be induce to cheat low just to place the marker where they need, and in that case it would came at quite no cost (just a low card). I proposed a version on that I reasoned a lot, since it was a long fight during closed beta to try to explain why this strat is swingy and wrong. We can fix it in several way (mine is just a possible solution), but I think the main problem is that markers can pop-up in the same location again and again. Just fixing this problem would let the stategy way better, imvho.
  8. I meant exactly that in my previous post... ☺️
  9. That "may" word is a nonsense completely. Full stop. I tryed to fix it in the closed beta at least twice, but I was ignored. I hope this time will be different. Finally, better later than never...
  10. Oh, you're right! I missed that particular, thanks. 😊
  11. Some masters that are heavily built upon a certain condition (usually burning or poison), could gain an ability that let more difficult to remove the condition. For example whithin x" from that master removing the condition would cost discarting a card, or it could just lowering the condition by -2/-3.... Just some raw ideas from me here.
  12. Hello, I noticed that in the actual (final?) ruleset, there is a rule I consider plain and simple wrong, with no possible "if" or "but". We're speaking of the following text in the shadow section, at page 18: As written, it's only the model on top of tha terrain that MAY (whatever it means...) see without hindrances, while the model that it's seen have no choice. First, the rule is bad written because it's not really clear what does mean exactly the "may" part of the rule. The model may ignore the element each time he tries to do it? When it does, it's become visible? There is a moment when he have to decide if he ignore or not the element? If I shoot ignoring the terrain, than other models can see me or not? Letting apart the misswriting in the rule, I can't find how the design idea behind this rule could be good for the game. Essentially, it would let a sniper shooting to models around without having no backfire at all because it's effectively invisible at most enemies. I don't find it healt for the game. This seems to me a simple mistake in the ruleset. A better written rule could be: Expanding the discussion, I find the shadow rule itself a bit problematic. It's an overcomplex rule, with many corner situations, and strange interactions. The problem is that, from the very start of the closed beta, the los rules had been centered around the shadow concept. There was not a single week that let us to test something different. At a certain point there was a pool to vote for the los system. But it was a bit cumbersome in how it was proposed and then it was closed definitely going all-in with the shadow system. I think that it would be beneficial for the game try to use a different los system. Personally I think that the simplest and most effective could be a cylindric volume system (for who knows the game, it's the los system used by Warmachine/Hordes): there aren't complex rules or sistuations, just draw los and if there's connection you see. Full stop. The shadow concept (that I like very much, tbh), could stay even in a new los system, in order to provide cover or others effect that modify los. Giving a chance to another los system don't change all the game, and I think it would not be so problematic in making tests. I really think it would benefit the game even if it would be dropped in favor or the actual los system, because at least we could say to have been tryed a different approach to los rules. I remember that in m2e the los rules were the worst of the entire manual, completely unplayable and bypassed by all players. Actual rules are waaay better. But I would suggest to put in test these rules much more attention than others section of the ruleset. Just my two cents.
  13. I'm really suprised that this strat didn't received any real fix for so long time. I tryed to underline that problems in few occasions during the closed beta, and some other players backed my positions, but nothing happened. I had the bad feeling as someone "fallen-in-love" of some aspects of the ruleset, and didn't hear any reason... I hope this time could be a different, more objective, approach. I like very much too the idea behind this strategy, as you do. BUT I strongly disagree with how this idea had been realized in practice. The wording is overcomplex, convoluted, confused, imprecise. Just to say, how can you place a marker "where the centerline meets the table edge" in a corner deployment? Or you place the marker outside the table, or you cannot place it in the prescribed spot.... Also, the two spots on a side are very near (around 6" in an angular deployment, 6.5 in a normal one), while the distance from the spot in the center and the nearest one is much variable (more than 16" in angular deployments, just 9" in a normal one). I could continue. I didn't mention all the weirdness of this strategy first because I tried to focus on the bigger problems. I really think that thos big problems need to be adressed, in particular if you consider that in tournaments usually you don't play a full 5-turn game. I like this idea in principle. But maybe this would lead the player that lost initiative to have too much power. Knowing less or more where the idols can pops up is good to plan your moves in this strategy. The problem actually is that in most games happens that 2 or more markers appear from the same spot. And if in a game happens that the first 3 idols are placed very near from each other, there is no more spreading out in that game and usually one of the two player gets a significant advantage. Another way to proceed could be let the player with less VP (not the loser as I proposed) to place the marker. Just some ideas here.... for sure I think this strategy need a significant change. For a casual game could be ok. But at the moment it's not a strategy I would like to find in a tournament.... My two cents.
  14. Hello, I am very busy and I wasn't able to follow the open-beta discussion as I did with the closed one. But I tryed to follow the evolution of the rules, and I have some concerns about some aspects of the game. I hope I will be able to post all of them in not so much time in the very next future. Now I start with some considerations about Corrupted Idols strategy. For completeness, it reads: I played this strategy several times, and while in some cases it works without huge problems, in a certain number of cases it creates some major issues. Essentially I experienced this strat suffers from having high misfortune spikes, that don't affect an "average" game, but when they appear they can hit hard. The main mechanic leading to this problem is that markers can appear repeatedly in the same spot, that summed with the random engine behind placing idols can let a player getting 3 or more markers in the perfect place for him, and the worst for the opponent. It happened in a pair of games that my opponent was completely cutted out from the strategy, in a case finally my opponent cheated his RJ to avoid the new idol appearing in a very good spot for me, but on the reflip he got the same suit so he lost his best card AND 2 VP... Essentially, this strat should be all around spreading the crews, but in some circumstances the focus of the game go all in a small single part of table. Also, another concern is about initiative suits and how they works to determine the placing spot for the idols. First of all we have 4 suits for 5 spots, that's not a so elegant choice. But the problem is that impact on the "weight" of each suits. The most powerful suit is , because it let a player choose between two opposite spots. Others suits all let you force in a single spot, but spot in the the middle, and this makes it the worst one because the centerpoint is easier to reach for both crews in any moment, generally speaking, making an idol in that spot more difficult to be defended. Linking idol spots to initiative suit is nice, but is essentially a random process. Yes, I know it's cheatable. But finally you need an high card of that exact suit in your hand to place the idol where you need. And if your good-to-win cards are all of the wrong suit (one that strongly works for the opponent), you're doomed to lost initiative (hoping for a better place from the opponent's suit) or win but giving an edge to you opponent. So, I propose to mantain the general mechanics of this strat, but removing the excess of spikes and fixing some strangeness. First of all, we could make each spot usable only once in the game, so to avoid idols stacking. Also, let's change how the idol's spots are determined. For example the player that lost initiative could choose where to place the marker in case it was an already used spot. Or the centerpoint could be used in a fixed turn (fifth or first), leaving the other 4 spots linked to a random suit. In this way, we would get a better more simmetrical suits arrangement, and no one would be so stonger/weaker than another. Also, another possible issue is with models having Obey or other similar rules. Something had been done for this from the very first version of this strat (avoiding to let a model be killed by a single action of an enemy one). But maybe using obey to make a model suffers 3 irreducible damages is enough a penalty. Adding to this also placing the marker where you like could be a bit too much, probably. Maybe it would be better if the Marker place is made by the owner of the model, regardless who is the actual controller??? There are some other minor issues in this strategy as written (such as: the idol spots are unevenly distributed on the centerline, particulary on angolar deployments, etc), but I left these apart, at least for the moment. So finally a new possible version of the strat could be (it's just an example): Thoughts?
  • Create New...