Jump to content

Hoffman the Inventor


dancater

Recommended Posts

You can also put the Symbols Markers where you feel you'll need the Pylons anyway if the terrain is favourable. Our boards have tons of terrain so it's always been rather trivial to severely restrict access to Symbols Markers using Pianos (they are Destructible but it's still a big AP sink to remove them) so I can see Pylons being super effective. Got to pack that Marker removal and keep it alive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

severely restrict access to Symbols Markers using Pianos (they are Destructible but it's still a big AP sink to remove them) so I can see Pylons being super effective.

Yeah this was my thought. Playing Zipp, destructible pianos are great. Indestructible ones seems pretty OP. 

 

Metallurgist looks great too. An attack with built in Convulsions is pretty great. It's only Stat 5, but being able to get people 3-6" out of position at range is big. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jordon said:

So I'm not super familiar with Hoff, but I am really liking the look of this new title.

Could someone breakdown the differences in play style between the two? Does one seem obviously better than the other? Does the crew composition change much based on either title?

I think it's hard to say without playing some games.

New Hoff and Old Hoff both supported models with Power tokens. Old Hoff did it by acting in a sort of bubble. Since New Hoff can start with some mini-bubbles on the field, and can create and move them around, there's less need to group up. New Hoff can't make armor unignorable, but the Pylons give out shielded, so models will still have some protection against the stuff that ignores armor. New Hoff has a built in toss, so with making blocking terrain he should be able to be annoying and cut off or make parts of the map hard to access for the opponent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, fire5tone said:

Metalurgist can, and he also reduces damage from blasts to 0

True. But Metalurgist can show up in either New Hoff or Old Hoff lists.

Convulsions might be better with New Hoff though and blocking mobile terrain. Come to think of it other Augmented movement stuff might be better with New Hoff cutting off lanes with Pylons. Stuff like Guardian's Toss or Hunter's Harpoon Gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OG Hoff is all about buffing his crew in a pretty tight, self-supporting armour bubble of mechanical ginsu. 

This new Hoff has more in the way of debuffing opposition. Also the Pylons handing out power tokens means the Inventors crew has much greater potential to spread out. However the Inventor cannot simply hand out power tokens like candy and the Pylons are static, only the Inventor can move them, so the crew becomes less one tight bubble and more several strategic nodes. 

OG Hoff is a little less resilient (one lower Df and Wd) and slightly slower (one less Mv) and much smaller size 2 and 30mm compared to size 3 and 50mm. OG Hoff has a slightly higher max melee dam (6 compared to 5) but shorter reach 30mm 1" opposing 50mm 2" so the Inventor takes up much greater threat space. The OG Hoff has a potential Construct Heal with welding which the Inventor does not have.

I can't be certain, but...

This is my feeling OG Hoff plays better into the midfield slugging match and his Construct crew will ultimately do more, with a better, more consistent power token flow. This is a max effort in one place, maybe scheme to the periphery crew.

While the Inventor is much more able to operate with less support, causing Bulldoze chaos and throwing enemy models around, meanwhile his crew works on a tighter power token budget but can do so in more spread out, isolated position, if necessary battling to hold key points and waiting for Daddy Hoff to storm over. This is a hold points and wait for reinforcements style set-up.

As I've slept on it I am more.... not exactly disappointed, but underwhelmed.

Of all the new title variants this feels like it does the least to change the core crew make up (the same excellent Construct options will be chosen either way and simply play slightly differently) and while the Inventor will look very different his personal playstyle is basically I have Armour, hit hard, can use power tokens and also hand them out (the method has simply changed).

In addition, as I and others have already argued, his Pylons have the potential to be super problematic.

  • As indestructible and impassable they can break certain strat and scheme victory conditions, which sucks, and this is worse depending on table layout, which is a random factor which should not be so emphasised. So if the Pylons are unassailable into the right circumstance it will be the worst type of cheap victory.
  • The Pylons are markers, which can, by some abilities be removed. The Inventor really relies on them, especially to power the crew and if an opponent can easily remove them well the whole theme of the crew and its strength is crippled. This sucks as the worst type of hard counter.
  • Opponents on hearing Hoffman will simply have to take whatever form of marker removal they can, to not do so will be very bad. Knowing this the Inventor title will constantly be the poorer choice against OG Hoffman, where the hard counter (anti-armour and ping damage) is reduced at least somewhat by the necessity of playing into the Inventor counter. But at the foundation both Hoffman crews are still countered by anti-armour, so the title just demands you dilute with marker removal.

I'd love either to, somehow, be totally misreading this (I don't think I am) or for Wyrd to be reading this and slightly modify the Inventor. The suggestions seem to revolve around some combination of making the Pylons NOT totally blocking (either passable in some fashion or destructible) and providing the Inventor with compensation, in terms of more ways to summon or protect the Pylons (to prevent losing them all if they can be more easily destroyed) or use the Pylons for damage or other shenanigans (if they are passable).

I just get the feeling that if this doesn't happen than in a years time the Inventor will be one of the failures (hopefully not, or if so the exception to the overall success) of this Burning Malifaux release. 

But I'd love to either be totally wrong, or for a simple light revision pre-release to negate this pessimistic view.    

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Pylons need to be impassible because they have a height. I'd probably make it so they can't be placed within ~2-3" of another marker (kind of like Underbrush markers) that way there should always be some free space models can move/place to get to symbols or the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Da Git said:

I think the Pylons need to be impassible because they have a height. I'd probably make it so they can't be placed within ~2-3" of another marker (kind of like Underbrush markers) that way there should always be some free space models can move/place to get to symbols or the like.

Aren't Lamps from Jedza's Lamplighters markers with a height (letting models draw LOS to them over the heads of other models) while not being impassable/blocking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Aren't Lamps from Jedza's Lamplighters markers with a height (letting models draw LOS to them over the heads of other models) while not being impassable/blocking?

Lamp markers are only Ht 4 and Concealing, so you can stroll back and forth across them as much as you'd like.

Also, how have we gone this far in this topic without someone making a "You require more vespene gas" joke?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Da Git said:

I'd probably make it so they can't be placed within ~2-3" of another marker

This would need to extend to can't be placed within 3" of terrain, or at least impassable terrain to be effective I think, otherwise the board could achieve the lockdown which the rules as written couldn't. 

Alternatively they could introduce a "Phase" rule where the Pylons cause nearby terrain to phase in and out of reality and become effectively passable in a 3" aura. I personally do not like this idea, but it would work.

16 hours ago, clockworkspide said:

Lamp markers are only Ht 4 and Concealing, so you can stroll back and forth across them as much as you'd like.

Boom. Pylons as a similar to Lamps, works for me, even thematically seems consistent.

16 hours ago, clockworkspide said:

Also, how have we gone this far in this topic without someone making a "You require more vespene gas" joke?

Because as a community we were waiting for you, so you're late.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, just make pylons into lamp marker rules and suddenly it works perfectly fine (other than the height rules being confusing).

I'd probably make them Hazardous too...they are supposed to be electrified, right?  At least that's the mental image I have.

Then again, maybe not, for gameplay reasons.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I doubt they'll change the core mechanic a month before the book drops specially as most of the changes would possibly affect the crew build / strategies.  Like hazardous... Would that mean Hoffman models ignore it? So now you can slide haxardous onto enemies? Or would you not ignore it and it be an issue for you (similar with concealment, would it just make spots that Melissa can't shoot through without a negative?)

That said I'm still in the camp that the possible case of blocking people in with pillars is an edge case that an opponent can tech around with the marker move / remove options in factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, muraki said:

Somehow I doubt they'll change the core mechanic a month before the book drops specially as most of the changes would possibly affect the crew build / strategies.  Like hazardous... Would that mean Hoffman models ignore it? So now you can slide haxardous onto enemies? Or would you not ignore it and it be an issue for you (similar with concealment, would it just make spots that Melissa can't shoot through without a negative?)

That said I'm still in the camp that the possible case of blocking people in with pillars is an edge case that an opponent can tech around with the marker move / remove options in factions.

In ressers, there are currently 2 options (Molly 1 or Yan Lo 2). Should people have to tech these in as second masters every time they face Hoffman? Or declare Molly/Yan Lo every time they face arcanists?

I don't think marker removal is a reasonable answer.

You can argue "just play the game only able to score 2 symbols" or whatever, but I'm not sure either of those solutions are very reasonable.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, clockworkspide said:

They are only 30mm markers and don't project any other effects directly.  I admit, I'm having trouble imagining them as that big a deal.

Then again, I don't play Gaining Grounds, so...

It depends heavily on the terrain of a table. If a table is set up so that a 30mm marker placed at a choke point forces the opponent to have to go fully around buildings/through your deployment zone to reach a Ley Line or Turf War marker then it could be a problem due to some factions having no counterplay. Most tables aren't going to be easily swung by this mechanic, but two markers placed at the start of the game followed by Hoffman moving one 3" with his bonus action (allowing them together to block a 30mm from passing between them) could block decently wide pathways.

It's just a bit rough to have a mechanic that combined with terrain can have such a devastatingly noninteractive impact on the outcome of the game for some matchups. On the other hand it really wouldn't be fair to new Hoffman for them to be destructible given how much he relies on them and how common Blow it to Hell is. He's gonna have enough problems with crews that can effectively remove them.

Weird suggestion, maybe make it so any model in base contact with one can take an Interact action to place it in base contact with themselves? Enemies can't destroy them but they can unplug a passage with some effort.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as another example...

image.thumb.png.f02a2c8edd206359501d091e5d529eb6.png

If Hoffman gets to activate with this board state and land a single hit, McMourning is out of the game permanently.

Hoffman:

  • Walk
  • Charge
    • Attack McMourning and throw him into base contact with the building on the right.
  • Bonus action to push a pylon into base contact with mcmourning.
  • Bulldoze the corpse marker to place a pylon marker into base contact with McMourning.

Does that not seem a little insane to anyone else? That's SO hard to play around. And McMourning in theory is really good against Hoffman, so it isn't like it is an unreasonable pick to take the master that ignores armor into Hoffman...

There ARE a handful of place effects that could be used to rescue McMourning (assuming he doesn't get staggered or the place models survive long enough). For instance, Dead Rider with Ride With Me. EDIT: Oh, and 'on your heels trigger', but just replace mcmourning with any master that doesn't have a self-place.

But that's awfully demanding list building to not just lose your master on the spot, and whatever list you build has to be able to beat Hoffman 1.

And again, the only way to get marker removal into a McMourning crew is second master Molly or Yan Lo (and that runs the risk they just declare Hoffman 1).

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

In ressers, there are currently 2 options (Molly 1 or Yan Lo 2). Should people have to tech these in as second masters every time they face Hoffman? Or declare Molly/Yan Lo every time they face arcanists?

I don't think marker removal is a reasonable answer.

You can argue "just play the game only able to score 2 symbols" or whatever, but I'm not sure either of those solutions are very reasonable.

Sure but we also don't know what else is in store for the rest of the book (as we got what? 3 masters with removal right now which is a lot). 

If more factions end up looking like explorers with models like jesse/tannenbaum to remove or move generalized markers then I don't see the 'place a marker such that it blocks out any score possiblity a slam dunk.  Similarity if you know Hoffman is across the table during terrain setup you can change the terrain so there's less dead spots on the board (similar to how people define forests / etc differently with jedza).

But also (and a possibly harsh statement) but I'm not sure the competitive scene is the most important consideration for new cards. As there must be more non-competitive players than competitive.

But hey play a bunch of games with him and see how it goes.  Right now feels like a lot of knee jerk theorycraft for a book that hasn't fully dropped matched with the static (and harsh large tertain piece) nature of a lot of vassal maps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, muraki said:

Sure but we also don't know what else is in store for the rest of the book (as we got what? 3 masters with removal right now which is a lot). 

If more factions end up looking like explorers with models like jesse/tannenbaum to remove or move generalized markers then I don't see the 'place a marker such that it blocks out any score possiblity a slam dunk.  Similarity if you know Hoffman is across the table during terrain setup you can change the terrain so there's less dead spots on the board (similar to how people define forests / etc differently with jedza).

But also (and a possibly harsh statement) but I'm not sure the competitive scene is the most important consideration for new cards. As there must be more non-competitive players than competitive.

But hey play a bunch of games with him and see how it goes.  Right now feels like a lot of knee jerk theorycraft for a book that hasn't fully dropped matched with the static (and harsh large tertain piece) nature of a lot of vassal maps.

Well, according to the rules you set up terrain before you know what people are playing.

And while I agree that once it is released we should all be gentlemanly to each other, I think it is reasonable to expect that the rules try not to be too abusable.

And vassal terrain isn't relevant for the second example. Literally any piece of impassable terrain will work for the prison setup demonstrated above. You can't set up a table with impassable terrain where this trick cannot be done I believe.

Also, in regards to the 'more marker removal in the game', IMO there should be no tech so strong that you instantly lose if you don't have the tech in your crew for whatever reason (for example, your local LGS sold out of the boxes).

And while this isn't quite an instant lose, it is pretty ridiculous AND npe, and I imagine in testing will result in a lot of games ended on the spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information