Gaining Grounds 2016

[firefoxyoshi]

So just curious, is this the new Scheme and Strategy deck that will be used in games from now on? Or just in specific cases. I just bought the, now old, version of the deck and want to know if that is still relevant at all.

[Fetid Strumpet]

The gaining grounds document that is updated every year so far is the competitive organized play document. If you don't do tournaments then think of them as just free options that you can use or not use as you choose.

If you are a tournament player then the document lays out the official stance and policies for official wyrd events. If you organize your own events, and are not trying to make your event official, use whatever you want.

If you are a tournament player as you are in a group with players that do go regularly to big or official events then you are likely going to be playing a lot of these over the next year as in my experience tournament players always want to be using the rules that are in force at tournaments so they are constantly practicing what will be in force there.

To summarize, no these don't replace or invalidate anything you bought before, though if you are in a group of competitive minded tournament players you may not get as much use from them if your group regularly uses this document.

[firefoxyoshi]

26 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

The gaining grounds document that is updated every year so far is the competitive organized play document. If you don't do tournaments then think of them as just free options that you can use or not use as you choose.

If you are a tournament player then the document lays out the official stance and policies for official wyrd events. If you organize your own events, and are not trying to make your event official, use whatever you want.

If you are a tournament player as you are in a group with players that do go regularly to big or official events then you are likely going to be playing a lot of these over the next year as in my experience tournament players always want to be using the rules that are in force at tournaments so they are constantly practicing what will be in force there.

To summarize, no these don't replace or invalidate anything you bought before, though if you are in a group of competitive minded tournament players you may not get as much use from them if your group regularly uses this document.

Got it, thanks! I like how they look so far, I just didn't know/want this to completely replace the old schemes (being a newer player, I'm still getting into the "old" ones). I know my local group is pretty into the competitive scene so I picked them up anyway, and I'm sure they'll be a nice mix up in regular games as well.

[Myyrä]

The zip on this page contains gaining grounds 2015 even though the title of the page says something else.

[BigHammer]

I have a bit of feedback on a couple of the schemes now that I've played a few games with them, if it helps at all:

The schemes that require things to be placed X inches away from the centreline tend to be weaker in corner or flank deployment, by large degrees. The area in which models/markers can be placed, and the length of the line that they have to pass to get there, are both considerably smaller when the mid-line is diagonal. This was already the case in the old schemes for Breakthrough, which became a poor choice in a corner deployment due to the smaller area that was valid for planting markers, but there are schemes now that require models to be at least 10" away from the centreline.

In Standard and Close deployment, this leaves them with a sizable area of 288 square inches, with a 36" face that doesn't diminish as it goes further into enemy territory. In Flank or Corner, the valid area of the table goes down significantly to about 239 square inches, and the face of this area starts at just under 31" and gets narrower as it approaches the "back" of the table.

In effect, schemes like this change their value greatly based on whether the mid-line is diagonal or not, to the point where some of them are extremely difficult to achieve in diagonal deployment with a crew that might manage them fine in standard or close.

Of course, there will always be other schemes to do, and Convict Labour is easier in a diagonal deployment due to the wider mid-line, which does compensate a little, but it feels like the difference in size of valid scheming areas for this style of scheme in diagonal vs straight deployments does change their value by a substantial amount.

This isn't a "these schemes are too hard" post, btw, simply feedback that I hope is constructive. Loving having new ways to play with my toys so far!

[PeregrineFalcon]

34 minutes ago, BigHammer said:

I have a bit of feedback on a couple of the schemes now that I've played a few games with them, if it helps at all:

The schemes that require things to be placed X inches away from the centreline tend to be weaker in corner or flank deployment, by large degrees. The area in which models/markers can be placed, and the length of the line that they have to pass to get there, are both considerably smaller when the mid-line is diagonal. This was already the case in the old schemes for Breakthrough, which became a poor choice in a corner deployment due to the smaller area that was valid for planting markers, but there are schemes now that require models to be at least 10" away from the centreline.

In Standard and Close deployment, this leaves them with a sizable area of 288 square inches, with a 36" face that doesn't diminish as it goes further into enemy territory. In Flank or Corner, the valid area of the table goes down significantly to about 239 square inches, and the face of this area starts at just under 31" and gets narrower as it approaches the "back" of the table.

In effect, schemes like this change their value greatly based on whether the mid-line is diagonal or not, to the point where some of them are extremely difficult to achieve in diagonal deployment with a crew that might manage them fine in standard or close.

Of course, there will always be other schemes to do, and Convict Labour is easier in a diagonal deployment due to the wider mid-line, which does compensate a little, but it feels like the difference in size of valid scheming areas for this style of scheme in diagonal vs straight deployments does change their value by a substantial amount.

This isn't a "these schemes are too hard" post, btw, simply feedback that I hope is constructive. Loving having new ways to play with my toys so far!

I've noticed this as well, been playing a few games on corner/flank with these, and you're very right, you just summarized it really well. As you say its a nice challenge and sure is something to help explain to new (and old) players who are looking/learning about these new Schemes. 

Another observation is that while the game is all about pre-measuring there is now a little more element of eye-balling and estimating if you're close enough in Turn1/Turn2 to get your scheme markers down for placement without showing your hand.

[CapnBloodbeard]

I like the unrevealed aspect, and the fact that you tend to acquire points more progressively stops the situation where you cannot prevent some schemes from hitting their points (Luna when Distract is on the table, for instance), so your opponent would just reveal them knowing it's a cheap extra point (and I play Viks, so flipping Murder protege + Assassinate makes me happy in all of my places!) . Given that's a common observation it seems to have been a big focus in the design of these. 

I'm not a fan of the fact that Levi's opponent gains point because Levi gets played the way Levi is designed to be played. 

Removing the potency of condition removal is huge.

Although with the autotakes - Hunting Party just means sending the Viks off killing scheme runners. Interesting, because a lot of the others seem to be aimed at condensing the board, this one could open it up (unless you want your minions in a bubble around, say, your master) - tough to play denial on that scheme.

Show of Force is an odd one. Again, hard to play denial on that I would think.

Catch and Release seems the same as exhausted, except it takes 2AP to remove, not 1...

It seems that it's a lot harder to play the denial game, because anything you're doing could be contributing to any number of schemes. It seems that it's no longer so obvious which scheme you've chosen the moment you put down your first scheme marker because there seems to be a lot of overlap.

Though the focus on interacts makes me wonder if crew which out-activate their opponent are going to be even more advantaged from sheer numbers, and elite crews may suffer....I mean, how do you defend against a  summoning crew tagging or exhausting you, when they have twice as many activations?

[amanwing]

Great job on those new shemes. Fantastic work!

[CapnBloodbeard]

Are you guys going to fix the link on the GG2016 page?  It still downloads the 2015 GG pack

[Artiee]

10 hours ago, CapnBloodbeard said:

Are you guys going to fix the link on the GG2016 page?  It still downloads the 2015 GG pack

What page are you taking about?   The download from http://www.wyrd-games.net/resources is the correct one.   Also the download from http://www.wargamevault.com/product/171684/Gaining-Grounds-2016-Strategy-and-Scheme-Deck is correct.

The Rapid Growth and Alternate Tournament Formats are still 2015 dates.   They was not part of the GG2016 update.

[CapnBloodbeard]

8 hours ago, Artiee said:

What page are you taking about?   The download from http://www.wyrd-games.net/resources is the correct one.   Also the download from http://www.wargamevault.com/product/171684/Gaining-Grounds-2016-Strategy-and-Scheme-Deck is correct.

The Rapid Growth and Alternate Tournament Formats are still 2015 dates.   They was not part of the GG2016 update.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/news/2016/1/22/gaining-grounds-2016

 

The main picture is a link to the 2015 Gaining Grounds pack.  Somebody else raised it a while back too.

[Dimitri]

Did anyone had problems with the cart ay wargames wedsite?

[Myyrä]

33 minutes ago, MalifauxVE said:

Is GG2016 deck from Wargame Vault Plastic?

Cardboard.

[Falcon108]

I was originally looking for the Schemes and Strategies Deck.  I just purchased this 2016 version.  Is this meant to replace the old deck, or is it just an optional add on?

[Adran]

It's an optional add on.

In a friendly game, you and your opponent will need to decide if you are playing with the book strategy and schemes, or gaining grounds, or some mixture of the 2. In organised play, then the organiser will have decided before hand what they are using.