GG2017. Do you like it?

[Dado]

Hi everybody! I've played about 10 games with the GG2017 Strategies and Schemes, and I am a little disappointed about that.

Schemes with a lot of rules and hard to accomplish. But the real trouble is to play Frame for Murder something like half of the time (it is a very funny scheme, but play it too many times make the game change!) . I'd like to know other opinions. What is your experience with GG2017? As the title says: do you like it? And why?

Sorry if this is not the right forum section or there is a similar topic! 

[Seadhna]

I love it.

The new schemes really put forward the skill element in this game.

There are more and more matches where I kill zero models but still win, and that is extremely satisfying.

There are also a lot of matches where shit just dies left and right, so variety is a thing.

Finally, the new set allows me to bring more varied lists to the table.

[Mutter]

I find I tend to bring LESS varied lists than GG2016, and therefor I prefer last year's schemes.

To me it seems that the focus on interaction heavy scheme has become slightly too strong, and as a result, I have a number of Masters and/or crews that I have difficulty justifying with the pool.

Not a big fan.

[Dogmantra]

I like most of it.

Claim Jump sours it for me though. I think it's too easy to score with a single model. Anyone with access to Reckless, Nimble or a (0) movement trick like Leap can do it on their own with basically no investment, and particularly in corner deployment it's pretty easy to find a little gap to hide in far from enemies. I just take it immediately in maybe 80% or so of games, which imo is the wrong way around for the "Always" scheme.

[Pallas4]

Just begin to test, I really like recover evidence. Not easy to do with a lot of lists (I think Colette have not problem with it :p), I really afraid of tail em witch have a too big impact of list (melee masters or henchmen :/). A friend said to me he was waiting for it to be errated.

 

Maybe next year

[bertmac]

I think claim jump is too easy to pull off for the always available scheme, not sure on FFM although it makes you think about crew construction and how you do your killing so is ok for me.

[4thstringer]

I haven't minded the switch of FFM to a suited scheme, though I know at least one person in my play group who really dislikes it.  I haven't liked most of the new schemes so far.  Hidden trap is too difficult, Claim jump is weirdly easy for some crews and hard for others, and Last Stand, while interesting, has been more likely to change crew builds than actually be taken.  

That being said, I like Accusation, those were good changes.  Tail em has felt too easy the times I've taken it.  Haven't gotten a good feel for recover evidence yet.  And I've liked Extinguish the leader.

[Gnomezilla]

I like Claim Jump as written, but not as the 'always' scheme. Three markers was effort enough for the 'always' scheme before the crop of new ways to produce markers without AP.

Very happy with Frame for Murder suited. Now all the suited schemes demand something slightly different of the crew. (BTW: Leave Your Mark needs tweaking, see also 'new ways to produce scheme markers without AP'.)

I need to see more people take Last Stand and succeed before writing it off entirely. How's it go in groups that aren't allergic to corner deployment? 

[mythicFOX]

I like them, mostly because they are harder than the last set, so requiring more skill to score.

It feels like lot of the schemes are also much less binary then last years set, under 2016 you often scored 0 or 3vp form a scheme, now you more often score between 0 and 3. There's a lot more room for play and counter play, knowing what your opponent has before they can score all of it.

As for Frame for Murder, it tests some very different skills than players are used to.  It's very much about bluffing and reading your opponent's actions.  The fact it rarely scores more than 2VP makes it much less of an auto take than some people will think it does.

[bedjy]

we got here some trouble with Dig their graves. Do you guys take it sometimes ? are you ok with it ?

 

[Fetid Strumpet]

I mostly like it. I very much dislike claim jump though. It's too easy. We've also seen throughout the release of M2E that the always available scheme has never really done what it was intended to do. And each cycle the models and builds that are the most consistent and static are the ones that focus on the ability to maximize points from the always available scheme. Mech Rider and other models that could just vomit schemes in one location for the first two cycles. Rooster riders in the last cycle, and so on.

From my personal perspective the always available scheme should involve scheme markers but be almost impossible to accomplish without bluffing. At this point in the cycle I'm really not sure if the always available scheme actually servesa  purpose. It was instituted so that if you put a scheme marker down there wasn't an instant knowledge of what it was for. But with the proliferation of abilities that use scheme markers as resources as well as the proliferation of schemes using them it might be an idea next cycle to try it with no always available scheme.

[Bengt]

29 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

From my personal perspective the always available scheme should involve scheme markers but be almost impossible to accomplish without bluffing. At this point in the cycle I'm really not sure if the always available scheme actually servesa  purpose. It was instituted so that if you put a scheme marker down there wasn't an instant knowledge of what it was for. But with the proliferation of abilities that use scheme markers as resources as well as the proliferation of schemes using them it might be an idea next cycle to try it with no always available scheme.

I agree with this.

A related thing is the scheme selection mechanic, sure it's kind of nifty with a variety of results from two flipped cards. But it also constrains the design space, so for the next iteration I'd like to see it changed (along with not having an always scheme).

[Tris]

I like it

Claim Jump is different than Convict, and better to deny imo, at least you have to invest the ap every turn to score all 3 from it - still easy for some crews, but that`s maybe always the case ( as long as nothing changes fundamentally, like discussed above).

Tail `em should have a big influence on your list, and is not that easy to score if you build "against" it.

I like Dig their Graves, brings a different vibe to the killing schemes - also like that its worded so that one model kill doesn`t count for more then one scheme.

The new Accusation is fine and avoids the old "I tap you, you tap me" situation.

Recover Evidence is good, I´m glad these are Evidence, not scheme markers.

 

Don`t like Hidden Trap and Last Stand, way too many moving parts to score reliably.

I like Last Stands idea to maybe punish high activation count, but with the announcement in the round before the round you are actually able to score way to easy to deny8Not saying that you don`t get a point or two, but if you get three from that scheme you would probably have won with any other scheme too)

Same with Hidden Trap - that actually favours heavy outactivating? - you are able to either move all your models away from enemy markers, pick them up or on the other hand try to get the markers down after they have activated everything.

 

Frame as a suited scheme is ok, although I have to admit that a lot of thinking is now neccessary in those games^^ (not essentially a bad thing  )

[H4ml3t]

I'm liking GG17 so far. I think "in general" things are harder to score so that there are fewer 10 point games. As a previous poster said, I also like that there's less schemes that are all or nothing.

Depending on the scenario (opposing crew, terrain, etc) some schemes are easy and some are hard and most fall in the middle. Taking Tail Em vs Leveticus might not go your way for instance.

In general, I find killing opposing scheme runners more important than ever. Sometimes I keep Langston out of the main fighting to hunt down enemy point scorers and the need to do that creates another important/interesting decision point.

I'm neutral regarding FfM being suited. Definitely a game changer. I'm starting to take it far less often because I can't directly ensure scoring it. I can still bluff it which is good.

I think Dig Graves can be great--if I've built a crew for it and depending on the opposing crew.

That's enough rambling for now.

[Inquisitor Wall]

I am really liking it so far, and I have found the schemes a bit more difficult so I have seen more close/low scoring games than in previous years.  As mentioned, claim jump is way too easy for some crews to accomplish with a single model in each activation.  

On a side note, there is no reference to games lasting for 5 turns, have people been limiting games to 5 turns or simply sticking to the time limit?

[H4ml3t]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor Wall said:

I am really liking it so far, and I have found the schemes a bit more difficult so I have seen more close/low scoring games than in previous years.  As mentioned, claim jump is way too easy for some crews to accomplish with a single model in each activation.  

On a side note, there is no reference to games lasting for 5 turns, have people been limiting games to 5 turns or simply sticking to the time limit?

It only has come up in 1 Tournament game but we flipped for it and played Turn 6.

[Dado]

2 hours ago, Tris said:

The new Accusation is fine and avoids the old "I tap you, you tap me" situation.

Yeah the new accusation is the only change that I completely approve 

 

5 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

Claim Jump sours it for me though. I think it's too easy to score with a single model.

Absolutely right. I think that it is too easy in comparison to other Schemes... The ALW Scheme should be the most difficult, not the easier!

 

1 hour ago, H4ml3t said:

I'm neutral regarding FfM being suited. Definitely a game changer.

Well said, it is a game changer. But I find boring to play it too many times, because:

1- I'd like to play damage Masters too FfM favor control Masters

2- The only way to be sure that you won't give points to the opponent killing an enemy is to use Poison or Burning  wow

3- It is not a real tactical war IMHO. This game is full of bluff, lucky shots and so on. Most of the time the death of my sucker or my oppo sucker is just random...

 

[bertmac]

13 minutes ago, Dado said:

 

Well said, it is a game changer. But I find boring to play it too many times, because:

 

2- The only way to be sure that you won't give points to the opponent killing an enemy is to use Poison or Burning  wow

 

 

Or rooted or hazardous terrain or their own models attacks...

[H4ml3t]

Or burying/paralyze.

[Nikodemus]

I too have noticed more close, lower scoring games. Then again maybe I'm just a bit better player than I was last year? Can't say. Overall I prefer GG2017 over 2016. I wasn't a fan of Hunting Party being on suits and that alone counts for a lot. At least for me it warped crew building too much in ways I didn't care for. For doubles, I miss Take Prisoner (aka. second best scheme ever) but enjoy Eliminate the Leadership being more common than if it were numbered.

I've had decent success taking Dig Their Graves. I only ever take it for Guard the Stash and Extraction since it's easier to predict where I need my markers.

I've been playing close combat masters most of 2017 and haven't given full 3VP for FFM, not yet at least. Not sure how I feel about it being on suits, but I do like that it's more common than numbered ones. Whereas Hunting Party heavily influence my crew build, FFM lightly influences my crew build and heavily influences how my crew plays on the table, and that's something I can appreciate. In the same vein I haven't had trouble with Tail'Em either. Not too many games with it but so far doesn't seem broken or bad.

There's a few schemes I'm not sold on yet, Hidden Trap and Last Stand in particular. I don't see myself being comfortable ever picking them. But I do think past version of Hidden Trap (Plant Explosives?) was perhaps a bit too easy. Not enough plays with Claim Jump to comment on it. It certainly seems easy with a long centre line.

Also I gotta say Recover Evidence is the best scheme ever. Really fun. I've been lucky enough to get it in a few tournaments and in some casual games. Scored 3VP from it most times too without it feeling too easy.

[EnternalVoid]

Overall I will say I have approved of 2017 though it seems like I run into long stretches of the same schemes being flipped, and I am talking about even the number ones.  So for a while it felt like I only hit like half of the 1-13 set which initially made me kind of jaded.  And it felt for the longest time I never got Frame for Murder to come up which was funny... though it seemed like every game was Dig their Graves and Leave your Mark for a while too.

I like that the schemes have gotten harder overall, I still remember the old protect Territory and the like.  But I have to agree some of them I avoid pretty often as they are hard to pull off unless you build almost your entire crew around that one scheme *Looking at you Last Stand*.  Oddly enough it seems a lot of people do not take Claim Jump against me, or if they do they get 1 VP and that is generally it.  So while I actually prefer 2017 over 2016 *was not a fan of Show of Force and Hunting Party showing up so much* I am looking forward to possible 2018 to see if there is a next adjustment.

[yool1981]

I'm Ok with the few games I had with GG2017 except for FFM.

I hate this scheme. It was Ok when it appeared from time to time in the pools because it was a funny exceptional experience but half the games is far too much for my taste. This is gamble and chance and I feel the game already has enough of them already.

Overall I preferred GG2016 but some schemes in GG2017 are really nice (Accusation is fun).