Jump to content
AndreyF

Gen Con 2018 Coverage

Recommended Posts

While I don't share all of @edopersichetti's worries, he didn't "decide it's a major overhaul", he said that [to him] "this looks more and more like a major overhaul". Before we actually get to try the changes out on the table, none of us know if it will feel like a fine tuning or major overhaul. In fact, even when when we do get to try it out on the table I am willing to bet that some of us will see it as a fine tuning and some of us will see it as a major overhaul.

Regarding the new scoring model I can't decide if I'm a bit apprehensive or cautiously optimistic. I mean, I've heard more than once on podcasts people saying things similar to; all you need to do is get your 6 points and prevent your opponent from getting their 6 points. So in that sense I think it makes sense to make strategy and scheme equal scoring. The way I see it (from a story perspective) the strategy is what the conflict is all about, the schemes are more like targets of opportunity, things your crew does to get one up on the opposition. So for me it makes sense that they are equal in importance.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adran said:

I'm also not sure that the aim of M2E going to more points on schemes worked out as they intended, certainly the switch to more scoring round by round in recent gaining grounds removed a part of the hidden game. 

?

I can see you’ve got a point here but no idea how you got there, and I want to know.

I thought that turn-by-turn schemes were there for counterplay and that counterplaying both strategy and schemes was the goal. You are saying it makes the hidden game something less?

(Maybe I’m not getting it because there isn’t much of a hidden game in my meta. If Take One for the Team pops up, he’ll give up the 2VP for it. If Show of Force, he’ll certainly take it even in Ours. Etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Especially, all of the bits about scoring Schemes and Strategies. That stuff could have all been done in GG2019 without an edition change.  

Somehow I don’t think we’re getting a GG19. :D If M3E appears mid-year, maybe not even a formal GG20 until we all figure out what’s what for models (masters?) as well as strategies and schemes.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gnomezilla said:

?

I can see you’ve got a point here but no idea how you got there, and I want to know.

I thought that turn-by-turn schemes were there for counterplay and that counterplaying both strategy and schemes was the goal. You are saying it makes the hidden game something less?

(Maybe I’m not getting it because there isn’t much of a hidden game in my meta. If Take One for the Team pops up, he’ll give up the 2VP for it. If Show of Force, he’ll certainly take it even in Ours. Etc.)

From what I can remember ( but haven't had time to find) they said they changed the score from 8 points in first to 10 in second to increase the value of the secret points scoring, and individual mission, partly because they also removed individual strategies ( which might not have been balanced enough for tournament, but was how I played most club games) and they also introduced the scheme pool to give each player the same scheme options but also fewer.

But one issue with the rulebook schemes was the possibility to kill everything then score, so when they started doing gaining grounds, they introduced more schemes that scored each turn so more often you knew all vp requirements earlier. 

There were certainly people who were of the opinion that the winner was generally decided on who did the schemes best because they had the most vps and it was easier to deny one of those than get a difference in the strategy. 

I assume the purpose of this change is to increase the focus on the strategy as the main turn by turn scoring, and have the scheme as surprising side mission. From reading the gen con strategy cards it appears I'll spend most of my ap trying to score the strategy, where as in M2E there are several that you almost can do with 1 or 2 models each turn whilst the bulk of the crew can focus on schemes or denial. But I'll have to see how right I am when I get it on a table. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

For sure one thing: there are many more changes, and of broader nature, than I expected when the news first came out about M3E. The initial message from Wyrd was sort of "fine-tuning" and "tightening the bolts", but as more details keep coming out, this looks more and more like a major overhaul. I mean, fundamental building blocks of the game are being changed like the stats, the AP mechanic etc. - to the point that @cbtb11235813 above said they were playing demo games to get a feel for the new mechanics...

I will have to see, but the ap change seems a fine tune to me, it is the case that in general it works the same, but the fine tuning changes some subtle things. It's certainly easier to say everyone gets 2 actions rather than 2 action points and each action costs a certain number of points. Whilst I expected all models to get new stats, the actual rules on the cards look like they could almost be played in M2e, with the only difference is the lose of a charge stat and no longer the sh/ml/ ca attached to the action. 

 

And whilst the scoring looks to be a big change, we are used to scoring changes every year, and if they just rolled out this scoring for gg 19, there would be a lot of talk about the difference, but I think it would have worked in m2e.

To me, the overview of the game and the core mechanics look largely the same. I could see this as a smaller change than from 1-2 was, from what we know. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair there where things that needed a major overhaul like elevated movement and line of site that where just not that intuitive to use. Most of us just ended up not using any elevated terrain which I think lost a lot of cool moments in a lot of games.

The core ideas still seem to be the same so it will likely just be a small adjustment for most of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WWHSD said:

Did anyone destroy and Destructible Ice Pillars? Were the ones she casts 30mm like the ones that drop when her Ice critters die.

They were all 30mm as far as I can tell, at least those were the only ones that Wyrd provided. Destructible so far means you can use an action to destroy a pillar in your engagement range. 

 

21 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

For sure one thing: there are many more changes, and of broader nature, than I expected when the news first came out about M3E. The initial message from Wyrd was sort of "fine-tuning" and "tightening the bolts", but as more details keep coming out, this looks more and more like a major overhaul. I mean, fundamental building blocks of the game are being changed like the stats, the AP mechanic etc. - to the point that @cbtb11235813 above said they were playing demo games to get a feel for the new mechanics...

Not really that much has changed in terms of play. By learning new mechanics I meant all the new abilities and playstyles (Marcus and his mutations, Raspy's pillars, etc). We only played like 2 turns, and as it was a demo, didn't want to bother with scoring. We weren't going to even play half of a game, so it seemed unnecessary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×