Is Tail 'em too Easy?

[JoeCL]

Here is my thought:

If you can out activate the opponent, all you need is a minion to run up with in 6" and interact with a master or henchmen  near the end of a turn to get your point.  Could be achieved even easier if minion has flight and is hiding behind a wall. Am I missing something?

[Clement]

Different schemes will be better or worse for different crews.  For example, going minion heavy is a liability if "Hunting Party" is in the pool.

[JoeCL]

1 minute ago, Clement said:

Different schemes will be better or worse for different crews.  For example, going minion heavy is a liability if "Hunting Party" is in the pool.

Good point but that's not likely in gg2017 since both schemes are numbered

[JoeCL]

Consider: Accusation mandates the interact action can only be done on an un-activated model. If tail 'em had the same stipulation I'd consider it more in line with the difficulty expected of the various schemes.

[Bengt]

8 hours ago, JoeCL said:

Consider: Accusation mandates the interact action can only be done on an un-activated model. If tail 'em had the same stipulation I'd consider it more in line with the difficulty expected of the various schemes.

Accusation is non-Peon vs non-Peon which is all or most models in typical crews, Tail 'em is Minion vs Master and Henchmen which is limited subset of models in both crews. So it's not like Tail 'em lacks restrictions, just that they are more on crew building instead of activation order. If you build a crew with a support Master and a front line of Minions and Enforcer it becomes a lot harder to do Tail 'em and Minions that reach the Master are more likely to be in the middle of the enemy crew with all the consequences of that. It will still be somewhat easy for some crews, e.g. Nicodem summoning expendable Necropunks to Leap ahead and spott (on the turn after they are summoned of course) before going splat, but that is true for any Scheme.

[Ludvig]

I'm with Bengt. Tail 'em isn't that easy to do if your opponent actually builds their list to protect against it. I believe that the need to tweak lists is an intended effect. As with most schemes, some masters will be a lot better at it.

 

[Terwox]

On 1/25/2017 at 3:53 PM, JoeCL said:

Here is my thought:

If you can out activate the opponent, all you need is a minion to run up with in 6" and interact with a master or henchmen  near the end of a turn to get your point.  Could be achieved even easier if minion has flight and is hiding behind a wall. Am I missing something?

 

Yes.  Tail'em is way too easy.  You should always take it.

[Tris]

I thought it was too easy at first, but have a different opinion now - you really have to build your crew accordingly, and if you wan`t to deny it you`ll need a plan for it, but that`s all perfectly doable if you start getting used to it^^

(and yes, it`s just not possible against Hamelin and Nix :/ )

[Ludvig]

Most factions have chatty models or similar ways to prevent interacts entirely so even Hamelin may find it isn't always that easy. 

[admiralvorkraft]

I've been running Lucius and a single Henchman carrying Numb. I haven't had anyone even try Tail 'em on me, though they could probably score it with some care.

[Bakunin]

5 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Most factions have chatty models or similar ways to prevent interacts entirely so even Hamelin may find it isn't always that easy. 

I believe Terwox wasn't saying Hamelin could do Tail 'Em easily, rather referring to how Nihilism makes it actually impossible to score the Scheme against Hamelin.

[Ludvig]

4 hours ago, Bakunin said:

I believe Terwox wasn't saying Hamelin could do Tail 'Em easily, rather referring to how Nihilism makes it actually impossible to score the Scheme against Hamelin.

Thanks, can't believe I difn't get that! He should do it competently too since he can out activate so completely.

[JoeCL]

I'm pretty confident this scheme is not going to make it into gg2018 in its current form. Though i admit my opponent did deny the scheme one turn because I spotted early and he maneuvered his master and henchman behind a wall instead of killing all the minions I swarmed him with.

Out activate + leapy minions if you take this scheme!

[Adran]

On 25/01/2017 at 9:53 PM, JoeCL said:

Here is my thought:

If you can out activate the opponent, all you need is a minion to run up with in 6" and interact with a master or henchmen  near the end of a turn to get your point.  Could be achieved even easier if minion has flight and is hiding behind a wall. Am I missing something?

I'd liek to point out that if you only slightly out activate (which is probably the most likely), then you are forcing your activation order to save a minion till near the end. I often find that its turn 2 that crews are really getting the bulk of their crew into the action, and if you are having to activate your master earlier in the turn to allow the minion to do this, then you are exposing your master to more risks.  And building a minion heavy crew is not without its own risks (especally if your opponent takes a chatty model to prevent your tail em). 

I've yet to try it, so I'm still only talking theory, but there seem to be several ways to deny this scheme in crew building,  making crew building to achieve it also pretty risky. I think your plan works well against in your face masters, but you are going to fail badly against Zipp, or Hamilin, Tara or other support masters that can escape or be a pain to target. 

[JoeCL]

12 hours ago, Adran said:

I'd liek to point out that if you only slightly out activate (which is probably the most likely), then you are forcing your activation order to save a minion till near the end. I often find that its turn 2 that crews are really getting the bulk of their crew into the action, and if you are having to activate your master earlier in the turn to allow the minion to do this, then you are exposing your master to more risks.  And building a minion heavy crew is not without its own risks (especally if your opponent takes a chatty model to prevent your tail em). 

I've yet to try it, so I'm still only talking theory, but there seem to be several ways to deny this scheme in crew building,  making crew building to achieve it also pretty risky. I think your plan works well against in your face masters, but you are going to fail badly against Zipp, or Hamilin, Tara or other support masters that can escape or be a pain to target. 

I think it needs to be pointed out though that wasting Master or Henchman AP to run out of sight is a HUGE side benefit, even if it means they are denying you 1 VP that turn.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Not really. It's only *maybe* any benefit at all. At the end of the day all that matters to determine the winner is how many vp you gained vs your opponent.

Consider if wyrd were testing an upgrade for a theoretical new master that was:

(3) gain 1 VP.

Would you consider the master to have "wasted" its turn taking such an action? AP are only valuable as a resource in how efficiently and effectively they gain you VP. By putting the condition on an enemy you are essentially giving them a varient of the above theoretical action. If Spending a few master AP guarantees you won't score a point or more from your chosen scheme, that is as good, mostly, as gaining a VP. So no it isn't always even remotely advantageous to have them do so unless doing so and denying you the point is less efficient in the overall game plan of denying you points or gaining points of their own. And that's a hard sell because you are effectively giving them 1 VP to move there.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, JoeCL said:

I think it needs to be pointed out though that wasting Master or Henchman AP to run out of sight is a HUGE side benefit, even if it means they are denying you 1 VP that turn.

Run out of sight? Why not just use a master like Lilith or Lucius who can trade places with a model that doesn't mind being near that minion. You can also use Sonnia, Rasputina, Reva or another master that can place LoS-blocking markers and/or attack from outside of LoS.

Don't pick Lady Justice with this scheme in the pool is what I'm trying to say.

[Bakunin]

There's an experiment to be done here, if someone was interested (I'm limited on models and opponents currently). Swap Tail 'Em for Claim Jump on the Scheme chart, and always take it, then keep track of how often 3 VP are gained from it.

[Seadhna]

5 minutes ago, Bakunin said:

There's an experiment to be done here, if someone was interested (I'm limited on models and opponents currently). Swap Tail 'Em for Claim Jump on the Scheme chart, and always take it, then keep track of how often 3 VP are gained from it.

Or you can just request data from Logfaux.com admins after a couple of months.

[tactician]

8 minutes ago, Seadhna said:

Or you can just request data from Logfaux.com admins after a couple of months.

Community-wide Strategy and Scheme data? I didn't think there was interest for that sort of thing, seems I might have been wrong .

I'll see what I can do for you.

[Seadhna]

8 minutes ago, tactician said:

Community-wide Strategy and Scheme data? I didn't think there was interest for that sort of thing, seems I might have been wrong .

I'll see what I can do for you.

Actually, by the end of the year (when it's time to make a decision on GG2018) @Aaron will love you for that data