GG1 FAQ and Errata: NVB changes

[LexLock]

Future Sight is so unlikely to go off that it's pretty much worthless and the fact that it isn't built in on either Df or Wp is ridiculous.

[Adran]

9 minutes ago, LexLock said:

Future Sight is so unlikely to go off that it's pretty much worthless and the fact that it isn't built in on either Df or Wp is ridiculous.

Built in future sight would be ridiculous. Knowing your opponents hand is a great ability. You should probably seriously consider saving high cards and stones to get it off.  You'll probably still rarely get it off, but because your opponent won't risk attacking euripides to let you get it off. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

28 minutes ago, Adran said:

Built in future sight would be ridiculous. Knowing your opponents hand is a great ability. You should probably seriously consider saving high cards and stones to get it off.  You'll probably still rarely get it off, but because your opponent won't risk attacking euripides to let you get it off. 

Interesting game theory for it though.

If your opponent IS attacking Euripedes, they may be confident they'll land the hit... In which case stoning may not be useful.

Some interesting bluffing opportunities!

[Roadhouse]

After playing it last night I intend to have 10ss with Euripides going forward. Playing against an empty handed opponent is absolutely absurd, it is hard to quantify until you do it.

[santaclaws01]

8 hours ago, LexLock said:

Future Sight is so unlikely to go off that it's pretty much worthless and the fact that it isn't built in on either Df or Wp is ridiculous.

Having it built in would be incredibly strong.

[Adran]

9 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Interesting game theory for it though.

If your opponent IS attacking Euripedes, they may be confident they'll land the hit... In which case stoning may not be useful.

Some interesting bluffing opportunities!

I know I have a much higher view of defensive triggers than lots of people.  Its because my main opponent when I learnt was a lady Justice player, who did make Repost work for him, so I've seen them when they are used to the extreme. (Its tough when you charge someone and end up suffering more damage than you dealt. when that happens a few times you learn to consider the power of the trigger). But if you don't play in a way to try and use the defensive triggers then they can come up so infrequently that you think they are useless.

And if I'm holding the 13 or the red joker, and use it on defense a few times, most models aren't going to know they can certainly land the hit, even if they are holding an 11 or 12. So if they are in that mindset, its often not worth risking the attack. Especially because of the old ways allowing Euripides to use that card twice if I attack him twice in a row. (If my plan was to attack him twice in a row and the first one fails with the trigger then I probably need to abandon my plan because now my opponent knows my hand, they also have the ability to discard one of my better cards from it (Probably) as well as knowing I'm probably going to miss because they have that good card on the top of the discard pile. 

I'd stone if I had a good cheat card, and even if it doesn't work, it should make the opponent more careful about attacking. (or else mean I am likely to get to know their hand which I think is worth it).  

I've not faced Euripides, so I'm only basing it on what I would do, but I would try and not attack him until I have almost no hand left if I think my opponent might try and use the trigger. It means he'll be a lot safer against me, and I know a good player will be able to use that to their advantage, but I think its less of an advantage than them knowing what my hand is, and so having huge power in every duel that follows that I might want to cheat in.  

[santaclaws01]

41 minutes ago, Adran said:

but I would try and not attack him until I have almost no hand left if I think my opponent might try and use the trigger. It means he'll be a lot safer against me, and I know a good player will be able to use that to their advantage, but I think its less of an advantage than them knowing what my hand is, and so having huge power in every duel that follows that I might want to cheat in.  

If you've got good cards in hand there's generally little risk since he's only Df 5, targeting WP is more risky. But pretty much if you ever attack him once and he gets the Future Sight trigger off, you should absolutely not be attacking him unless the only way you can miss is with jokers preventing you from cheating a card from your hand, because now the Euripides player knows exactly what suit he needs to declare to decimate your hand. You should also probably not attack if if he just used Rake the Eyes on you.

[Adran]

15 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

If you've got good cards in hand there's generally little risk since he's only Df 5, targeting WP is more risky. But pretty much if you ever attack him once and he gets the Future Sight trigger off, you should absolutely not be attacking him unless the only way you can miss is with jokers preventing you from cheating a card from your hand, because now the Euripides player knows exactly what suit he needs to declare to decimate your hand. You should also probably not attack if if he just used Rake the Eyes on you.

As I said, I'd personally be prepared for him to hold onto 13s for it, so if I can't cheat to reach 18 vs df, then I'd probably not try the attack (unless I have very little hand left when them knowing the cards I hold is much lower power). I know not all people will hold cards that high to cheat df with, but if I don't know my opponent well, then I over assume how they play, rather than under.

[Nagi21]

20 minutes ago, Adran said:

As I said, I'd personally be prepared for him to hold onto 13s for it, so if I can't cheat to reach 18 vs df, then I'd probably not try the attack (unless I have very little hand left when them knowing the cards I hold is much lower power). I know not all people will hold cards that high to cheat df with, but if I don't know my opponent well, then I over assume how they play, rather than under.

Apparently you get 13's in your hand quite often.  It's a bad value proposition for Euri anyway, since bare minimum anything attacking him should tie his DF.  So not only do you need a higher card than your opponent, you need a suit to go with it since it's not built in.  Unless your opponent's hand is already decimated, or you start spending soulstones on the hope you have a high enough card to not get tied, it's not going off reliably, let alone twice.

[Maniacal_cackle]

10 minutes ago, Nagi21 said:

Apparently you get 13's in your hand quite often.  It's a bad value proposition for Euri anyway, since bare minimum anything attacking him should tie his DF.  So not only do you need a higher card than your opponent, you need a suit to go with it since it's not built in.  Unless your opponent's hand is already decimated, or you start spending soulstones on the hope you have a high enough card to not get tied, it's not going off reliably, let alone twice.

You'll have a 13+ in your starting hand ~46% of the time, assuming no card draw beyond your initial six. So knowing how to force it when your hand presents the opportunity will make a big difference. Not to mention more realistically you can be ready to force it with a 10+ if your opponent has already spent their high cards, and you're over 90% likely to have at least one card higher than a 10.

[Adran]

41 minutes ago, Nagi21 said:

Apparently you get 13's in your hand quite often.  It's a bad value proposition for Euri anyway, since bare minimum anything attacking him should tie his DF.  So not only do you need a higher card than your opponent, you need a suit to go with it since it's not built in.  Unless your opponent's hand is already decimated, or you start spending soulstones on the hope you have a high enough card to not get tied, it's not going off reliably, let alone twice.

Personally I rarely get 13s, but my opponents seem to get them in hand all the time. I make my in game choices assuming the worst, so I assume the opponent has a 13 to activate future sight, and if I can't beat that I would decide how important it is to make the attack.

I know my opponent won't always have 13s, but I don't know when they do or don't have them, so I choose to plan as if they do have them. It means that there are times I don't do things that might have been safe, but I'm less likely to make game losing mistakes that way. (If I need a model on 3 wounds to live, I don't use it to attack Lady Justice even though I know that its unlikely she'll have the card to get her counter attack trigger off, because the pay off of the successful attack generally is not enough to cover the cost of the death on the times it happens).

It is a player mindset/playstyle. It is one that I was driven into by playing against people that did hold onto those cards, making the likelihood that that attack backfired even higher. If you don't play that sort of player, you might have a different calculation.

Also spending the stone for the suit means that the roughly 40% time you are winning on the straight flip, you've almost forced the opponent to cheat a good card. That might not be good enough odds for you, but its another thing to consider