Let's Discuss: Guild Pathfinders; Tactica, Strategies and Utilization

[fauxreigner]

Agreed, multiple pathfinders will generally be a waste. You could always take Queeg. Then, when you do get two summon cards in hand, you can get two traps. And when you don't you still have Queeg (+Promises).

[Surrealistik]

Promises Queeg could be good with San Fran and the Doc for sure (much as I hate the guy's personality/characterization).

I really wish PFs had auto success on trap laying with Focus +2 though. Missed opportunities; oh well.

[Hagisman]

58 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

Promises Queeg could be good with San Fran and the Doc for sure (much as I hate the guy's personality/characterization).

I really wish PFs had auto success on trap laying with Focus +2 though. Missed opportunities; oh well.

That wouldn't match up with how TN's work.

I'd say Pathfinders are more nuisance pieces when I use them. Typically they lock down an area and my opponent is forced to deal with them. Generally turn 1 or 2 I'm fishing for 6+ to get off the traps. While they don't add to the activation control they are great at locking down territory and Interference.

[Surrealistik]

2 minutes ago, Hagisman said:

That wouldn't match up with how TN's work.

I'd say Pathfinders are more nuisance pieces when I use them. Typically they lock down an area and my opponent is forced to deal with them. Generally turn 1 or 2 I'm fishing for 6+ to get off the traps. While they don't add to the activation control they are great at locking down territory and Interference.

What do you mean exactly?

The TN would still be relevant when it comes to cheating and flips on Focus +1 or under.

Auto-success at Focus +2 per the ability I described earlier comes at significant cost; I feel it'd be a balanced tradeoff.

[fauxreigner]

Or an ability: once per turn this model can spend a stone to add a suit to a duel. That might make him a little too powerful though. I already find him useful enough to bring in good number of games, so its hard to argue that he needs a buff (even though I wouldn't turn one down ).

[Surrealistik]

Yeah I think that might be a little strong since it has no impact on his action economy.

I don't deny that the Pathfinder can be an effective model; my problem is that his hallmark/calling card ability is so random/inconsistent, and that he's a one model wonder; if that was fixed, he'd be perfect in my eyes.

[Ludvig]

A six SS model can generally not summon very well, I think there's a reason for that.

Just using the pathfinder with a single bought trap to lock down a huge section of the board is quite nice. The Sh attack has a really solid damage track, blasts and the ability to ignore both armour and htw which is huge.

[Surrealistik]

12 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

A six SS model can generally not summon very well, I think there's a reason for that.

Just using the pathfinder with a single bought trap to lock down a huge section of the board is quite nice. The Sh attack has a really solid damage track, blasts and the ability to ignore both armour and htw which is huge.

I don't think there's an issue with making his summoning more consistent at a cost, especially if that cost happens to be a high card or a full turn. Even with my proposed changes the Austringer is still significantly better for the same price (which is, like it or not, the gold standard at 6 SS).

 

[Ludvig]

10 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

I don't think there's an issue with making his summoning more consistent at a cost, especially if that cost happens to be a high card or a full turn. Even with my proposed changes the Austringer is still significantly better for the same price (which is, like it or not, the gold standard at 6 SS).

 

Austringers are better than a lot of 7ss models and share 1st place with belles for having the most loathed attack in the game so I don't think they're a good gold standard. The ability to ignore LoS without any prerequisites and 18" range can't really be compared with anything else. Austringers are better than most masters at what they do so you can't go giving every guild model at 6ss or above abilities that are better than that. Just accept that austringers are stupidly broken and be glad that they are rare 2.

[Surrealistik]

1 minute ago, Ludvig said:

Austringers are better than a lot of 7ss models and share 1st place with belles for having the most loathed attack in the game so I don't think they're a good gold standard. I think they fill different roles so a straight up comparison isn't easy. The ability to ignore LoS without any prerequisites and 18" range can't really be compared with anything else. Austringers are better than most masters at what they do so you can't go giving every guild model at 6ss or above abilities that are better than that. Just accept that austringers are stupidly broken and be glad that they are rare 2.

Is it your opinion that my proposals literally give the Pathfinder better abilities than the Austringer?

Honestly the Austringer is still leagues ahead of what I'm suggesting.

[Ludvig]

2 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

Is it your opinion that my proposals literally give the Pathfinder better abilities than the Austringer?

Honestly the Austringer is still leagues ahead of what I'm suggesting.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I think the pathfinder is in a decent enough place to not have an errata since every mid-edition change is a strain on players to update cards and keep track of stuff. The austringer would be a better candidate if we were looking at models to change.

[Surrealistik]

8 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I think the pathfinder is in a decent enough place to not have an errata since every mid-edition change is a strain on players to update cards and keep track of stuff. The austringer would be a better candidate if we were looking at models to change.

Okay, because you seemed to be kind of asserting that or strawmanning with the whole 'go giving every guild model at 6ss or above abilities that are better than that' bit, which has essentially nothing to do with what I'm proposing/arguing.

Also I'm not sure if that's really true. The only time I can really justify a Pathfinder is where the schemes are heavy on territory/area control and thus play to his situational strengths, and even then he's facing tough competition, or Guild McMourning. I do agree that there are probably more pressing erratas, but such a change would really expand this model's desirability without breaking him. The only thing I have doubts about is how high a card should be sacrificed to guarantee a trap on the cheat.

 

I'm down with Austringers getting Cuddled if Belles and the like also end up drinking some bitter cuddle punch.

[solkan]

10 hours ago, Surrealistik said:

Yeah I think that might be a little strong since it has no impact on his action economy.

I don't deny that the Pathfinder can be an effective model; my problem is that his hallmark/calling card ability is so random/inconsistent, and that he's a one model wonder; if that was fixed, he'd be perfect in my eyes.

It's a model summoning ability on a minion.  If you don't want it to be "random" or "inconsistent" then it's going to cost Scrap Markers to do anything.  It currently doesn't cost Scrap Markers to use, so it requires either trusting to fate or card management.

Card management is why the models have Scavenge Supplies, as far as I can tell.

6 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

Also I'm not sure if that's really true. The only time I can really justify a Pathfinder is where the schemes are heavy on territory/area control and thus play to his situational strengths, and even then he's facing tough competition, or Guild McMourning. I do agree that there are probably more pressing erratas, but such a change would really expand this model's desirability without breaking him. The only thing I have doubts about is how high a card should be sacrificed to guarantee a trap on the cheat.

If the model has situational uses, it's not broken. 

[Ludvig]

@Surrealistik

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to build a strawman. Internet discussions are hard.  

I use them quite a lot with Lucius since they are one of the few minions who ignore armour which is huge against a lot of lists. If your master and/or other models already makes you ignore armour then their usefulness drops drastically. They pair very nicely with austringers since they are pure shit in melee so they benefit a lot from being pushed out. They are also generally in excellent positions to place markers by austringer push. Since I have refused to paint my second austringer out of respect for my opponents my pathfinder makes my lists quite often. Another quite nice thing is that they use suits rarely used by other models (at least the ones I play). My biggest concern for them is that they are so completely neutered by being locked in engagements and lack a way of escaping. Compared to freikorp trappers they start to look squishy and slow.

[Ludvig]

@solkan Well said about situational models. The most boring part of this game is generalist models in my eyes since they are sometimes so generally useful that they are better than specialists. I would welcome more models being niched so that you would see more variety. I realize that would force people into buying even more stuff which would bug a lot of people (but should make Wyrd salivate with anticipation)

[Surrealistik]

10 minutes ago, solkan said:

It's a model summoning ability on a minion.  If you don't want it to be "random" or "inconsistent" then it's going to cost Scrap Markers to do anything.  It currently doesn't cost Scrap Markers to use, so it requires either trusting to fate or card management.

 

If the model has situational uses, it's not broken. 

#1: Why does it need to be random and inconsistent? It all comes down to whether the price is right, and I'd say demanding Focused +2 or a high card for a Clockwork Trap sounds pretty right as a price. Not sure why Scrap Markers are mandatory.

#2: The Pathfinder certainly isn't broken (I think you may have misinterpreted what I said in that my fixes improve it to be more consistent/reliable without breaking it), but outside of McMourning, it's probably too situational as is. When the schemes play directly to its strengths and you're still considering other models for the cost, that's a pretty bad sign.

 

8 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

@Surrealistik

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to build a strawman. Internet discussions are hard.  

I use them quite a lot with Lucius since they are one of the few minions who ignore armour which is huge against a lot of lists. If your master and/or other models already makes you ignore armour then their usefulness drops drastically. They pair very nicely with austringers since they are pure shit in melee so they benefit a lot from being pushed out. They are also generally in excellent positions to place markers by austringer push. Since I have refused to paint my second austringer out of respect for my opponents my pathfinder makes my lists quite often. Another quite nice thing is that they use suits rarely used by other models (at least the ones I play). My biggest concern for them is that they are so completely neutered by being locked in engagements and lack a way of escaping. Compared to freikorp trappers they start to look squishy and slow.

Fair enough.

I'm not really sure as to the value of a Lucius list in determining the relative strength of the Pathfinder, particularly where self-handicapping through forgoing a second Austringer is concerned. Also yeah, their melee is absolutely atrocious while they have no escape options; if the enemy bypasses their traps into engagement they are in serious trouble. I like pairing them with Hermano Franc who can rescue them from such situations while also pulling traps around (Austringers can also bail them out).

As for niche models, my preference is to make models more consistently useful so that way you still have an incentive to buy more shit while none of your purchases feel gimped. A Pathfinder with consistent trap spawns is still a specialized model only it'll see use outside of rarefied situations/lists for example.

[solkan]

49 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

#1: Why does it need to be random and inconsistent? It all comes down to whether the price is right, and I'd say demanding Focused +2 or a high card for a Clockwork Trap sounds pretty right as a price. Not sure why Scrap Markers are mandatory.

Look at the summoning abilities on the masters, and consider what happens if you don't use a soul stone or otherwise arrange for the summoning to succeed.  You get a random, inconsistent summoning ability.  Especially if no markers are consumed.  Because that's how summoning abilities are balanced in this game--summoning consumes limited resources.  That's what's keeps it in check, whether or not the summoning is the model's "signature ability".

Focused +2 isn't a meaningfully limited resource on a model of Minion status that's going to be using its (0) Action to perform the summoning. 

Let me repeat that.  A 6SS minion spending its two AP to perform Focus isn't a meaningful limitation on summoning.  You may as well write the words "I wish summoning a trap was a (2) Tactical Action that automatically succeeds."  Because that's effectively what it becomes, except for all of the cases where other models are going to be able to generate the Focused condition on the model.

If you want to talk about making that summon more reliable, it needs to have an actual cost in limited resources.  That means that it's either going to have to require discarding markers, or it's going to require discarding cards.

 

On a historical note:  Once upon a time, in 1.5E, the Pathfinder was 6SS Rare 2 model which came with two (2) Clockwork Traps (2SS Rare 3) that it summoned for free automatically when it wanted to during the game.  Granted, once a model had placed its two traps it was done and didn't get any more.

I wasn't around for the beta, I don't know what various iterations the Pathfinder went through to end up with the Pathfinder no longer Rare and the Clockwork Trap increased to Rare 4.  But that "two free traps per pathfinder" is what got turned in to it's current "6+ to summon". 

[Eclipse]

Summoning is an action that creates extra resources from (almost) nothing. In addition, you can look at actions and AP as resources themselves. Therefore, mechanics are required to balance this out as some people already find summoning obnoxious regardless of it's limitations or requirements. Most of the summoning actions require corpse or scrap markers and -in addition- are suited or double suited to encourage cheating from hand and/or stoning for a suit. It is true that the Clockwork Traps themselves do not create extra AP, but they -are- an extra body that can deny interacting, can not get conditions from schemes and potentially gives out Slow, not to mention the Armor that allows them to eat up additional AP from the enemy. My opponents had learned to twitch from the sight of dual Pathfinders - one summoning the trap and the other bouncing it at the most annoying place possible to deny territory and AP. Not to mention that the traps are amazing vectors that allow you to shoot behind LoS if you target the trap and 'randomize' an enemy model - effectively adding up to 2"+ the base of the Trap to your shooter's range.
The fact that the trap needs a 6 is annoying, but necessary to balance them as well as to teach you not to overextend. If you do not have the Tome in hand, do not plan around summoning a trap. They can run schemes Turn 2 onwards (From the Shadows) and have a great shooting attack for minions. Their weakness in melee can also be easily mitigated - push them out with a birdslinger, drag away the enemy with a metal kitty. If you are playing Lucius then Mr. Graves will gladly Show to the rude attacker the Door and into a trap.

[Hagisman]

16 hours ago, Surrealistik said:

What do you mean exactly?

0 action Tacticals that require a TN typically don't interact with other abilities. You might see a minion only upgrade card IF Wyrd deem it necessary.

Focus itself is not meant to be used as a resource outside of how it normally works and maybe the Guild Rifleman's lower Focus by 1 to do damge against a charging model. And that might just be do to focus being the Rifleman's core feature as it gives them Rams. It's definitely my opinion though and Wyrd could change their stance on how Focus works.

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, Hagisman said:

Focus itself is not meant to be used as a resource outside of how it normally works and maybe the Guild Rifleman's lower Focus by 1 to do damge against a charging model. And that might just be do to focus being the Rifleman's core feature as it gives them Rams. It's definitely my opinion though and Wyrd could change their stance on how Focus works.

Riflemen aren't the only models able to use focus for unusual stuff.

[Surrealistik]

@Eclipse@solkan

Too much to quote without bloating my response unnecessarily, so let me keep it (relatively) brief with this:

Focus +2 = AP = A resource which is in fact limited; like everything else you only get so much per unit of time. In fact, virtually everything boils down to an AP expense; actions and their economy are the fundamental coin of the game.

AP creates the markers that you deem necessary/obligatory for summoning. AP rolls the dice that eventually allows you to succeed at random summons. AP can even generate soulstones and cards to be discarded. It is a valuable and limited resource you only get so much of per turn; Oathkeeper is widely considered a stellar upgrade despite costing a precious soulstone precisely because it grants 1 AP as needed.

Typically how long do you expect a Pathfinder to last on the field? 3-5 Turns? Divide its SS value by that amount, and that's roughly how much Focus +2 costs in terms of SS; its 'time value' so to speak.

In general your real objection seems to be largely that such a capability defies precedent, but we already have several instances of Focus being exploited as a resource to do atypical things, and tradition/precedent is by itself not a compelling reason to insist on an approach.

If such a change somehow overpowered the Pathfinder or made it too strong, I would agree with the need to require additional resources above and beyond said AP cost (like discarding a card), but I really don't think it does; it doesn't pass the litmus test of making the model OP for its cost and a must pick (or close to it). I think that slapping Rare 2-3 on the Pathfinder post-change might make sense as a precaution if only to prevent lists that run four of the dudes and spam as many traps as possible every turn (questionably effective given the opportunity cost, but definitely unfun/annoying ASF), but that aside, blowing a full turn's worth of actions to summon a Trap just doesn't seem like a game breaker or overtly compelling to me given the competition/alternatives for the SS, especially in Sonnia, Hoffman and Perdita lists which currently have no space for the guys in most cases, even when they might appeal per the schemes.

 

[Eclipse]

So to make myself clear: What I was trying to say is that I find the 6 required for summoning a trap balanced and necessary, albeit annoying.
I did not discount Focusing twice to try and summon the trap as a possibility, although I find this to be too much of a gamble as I prefer having the required card&suit in hand.
I did not mean to talk about defying precedent at all (as that has happened before). I was saying that I find Pathfinders balanced as is. The trap summoning should be unreliable IMO.
I am well aware that AP is a resource, to which I allude in my previous post with the expectation that those that read it would be able to understand that. The trap eats the AP of the opponent and denies territory; the general 2 AP can be used to shoot and kill (reduce AP for good), to interact (gain VP), to re-position (value depending on context).
If you are able to summon for (0) with the right card from hand it will be far more productive then using the model's two AP to focus and then try to summon as the (0) action is a 'free' action.
These are my own opinions and if you do not agree with some of them, we can just agree to disagree

[Surrealistik]

@Eclipse

Keep in mind I was addressing two people in my response; some of my points were addressed to you, others to solkan.

That said I completely disagree with the idea that 6+ Tomes is specifically required to make summoning traps balanced; there is nothing I can see which that mandates or even suggests that this is the only cost acceptable or that more consistent alternatives would be unworkable/broken/inferior. Further I think there might be a misunderstanding of my suggestion since my proposal _guarantees_ summoning the trap in exchange for a 2+ focus, either as an errata to Set the Trap, or as a separate ability.

The fact is that double focus for a guaranteed trap is perfectly fair when you consider the time value of your AP; for a Pathfinder that ranges from 1 SS to 0.6 SS per AP, depending on whether a longevity of 3 or 5 turns is assumed (6 / (5 to 3*2)). In effect, a guaranteed Clockwork Trap would cost 2 to 1.2 SS in AP; a slight discount on average vs the 2 SS baseline but at the cost of not being able to place it wherever you want immediately.

 

[Eclipse]

@Surrealistik
I know that you were replying to two people as you mentioned this in your post. I just wanted to make my own stance clear.
  Please bear in mind that it is not enough to calculate how much the Pathfinder spends in AP to summon the traps. How much AP and cards the opponent needs to spend to get rid of the trap, or to disengage, or to (hopefully) pass the Wk duel must also be taken into consideration.
  For a crew without Ignore Armor most attacks -that hit successfully- will deal 1 Wd, or on average about 3-4 attacks will be required to bring a trap down. Why would you want to bring a trap down? Not all crews have access to pushes, very few models can interact while engaged, and overall it's very annoying to be inside a Clockwerk Trap's engagement area.
  Anyway, as I already said, we can just agree to disagree. You have your way of seeing things and I have mine. It doesn't seem that either of us will think differently

[Surrealistik]

@Eclipse

A single 5+ damage attack, or armour ignoring 3+ damage attack will wreck a Clockwork Trap for 1 AP; there are plenty of these among every faction. In general you can probably destroy a Clockwork Trap at par/even cost or less (assuming an investment of 2 AP), or at worst, if your crew is somehow completely unequipped, at a slight cost disadvantage.