50 SS Enforcer Posted January 21, 2022 Report Share Posted January 21, 2022 What do you want to see for this upcoming year? Personally I miss supply wagons, I miss things that forced hiring down a strange path. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiralvorkraft Posted January 21, 2022 Report Share Posted January 21, 2022 As I said in the errata thread, schemes and strats that encouraged non-combat interaction and that score points by leaving models alive. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regelridderen Posted January 26, 2022 Report Share Posted January 26, 2022 Just a decent whack of the nerf bat to a couple of the explorers. Seeker, DUA/Umbra and Cadmus. And I’d love to see Plant Explosives back. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiralvorkraft Posted January 26, 2022 Report Share Posted January 26, 2022 Plant Explosives was a fun strat. I way prefer it to symbols. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniacal_cackle Posted January 26, 2022 Report Share Posted January 26, 2022 Yeah I also love Plant Explosives! Although apparently it rewarded some wonky styles of play? Not sure, I didn't play in a big meta back then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted January 26, 2022 Report Share Posted January 26, 2022 I played probably a dozen games of GG0 when I first started. I never got to play Plant Explosives. I didn't flip it once 😆 Would love a chance to actually play it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrok Posted January 27, 2022 Report Share Posted January 27, 2022 I'd personally like to see as much new content as possible. I understand that assassinate and vendetta will likely be in every pool ever. But I'd really just like to play new things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiralvorkraft Posted January 27, 2022 Report Share Posted January 27, 2022 13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said: Yeah I also love Plant Explosives! Although apparently it rewarded some wonky styles of play? Not sure, I didn't play in a big meta back then. And what, may I ask, is wrong with wonky styles of play? But seriously, what I loved about it was how many viable approaches to scoring there were. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RisingPhoenix Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 Schemes scored over subsequent turns (so both points can be scored before endgame) Less schemes that end up taking 4-6 scheme markers to complete. Schemes that require markers down for point 1 and pick them up for point 2, for instance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiralvorkraft Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 6 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said: Schemes scored over subsequent turns (so both points can be scored before endgame) Less schemes that end up taking 4-6 scheme markers to complete. Schemes that require markers down for point 1 and pick them up for point 2, for instance. I've been thinking about schemes and strats a bit more. What I want to see boils down to schemes and strats that encourage non-attrition play either by actively discouraging it (the old Cursed Object and Deliver the Message) or by providing incentives to just do other stuff (the old Plant Evidence or Power Ritual). Looking at it in terms of creating more physical areas on the board to score, and also more temporal spaces. I feel like every pool is identical because almost every scheme comes down to "control bottom of turn, take one action with a model that makes scheme x trivial," and it's just boring? M2e allowed way more lines of shutting and denial and I'd like to see some of that come back. Give me more schemes and strats that I can work ahead on, give me more ways to interact with the other crew and the table. And yes, please make scheme crews viable by enabling in-game scoring of the second scheme point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adran Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said: Less schemes that end up taking 4-6 scheme markers to complete. Schemes that require markers down for point 1 and pick them up for point 2, for instance. I may be wrong, but I assumed that this was part of an attempt to try and increase the use of the cheaper models. After all, one of the biggest advantage of 2 cheap models is they get twice as many actions, and the quality of an interact action is identical if you cost 3 ss or 11 ss. If that was the plan, I don't think it worked, but that might just be because there were still enough schemes that didn't need that level of action to still be able to pick the elite list and score high enough whilst still being able to kill the cheap models fast enough they didn't out score you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Adran said: If that was the plan, I don't think it worked, but that might just be because there were still enough schemes that didn't need that level of action to still be able to pick the elite list and score high enough whilst still being able to kill the cheap models fast enough they didn't out score you. That's certainly been my impression. It's hard to reconcile the existence of stuff like Spread Them Out with, say, Research Mission or Vendetta, which can so often be scored without spending any AP you wouldn't have spent if the objectives were just "kill as many enemy models as possible". To be honest, my inclination is to actually go further in the opposite direction. I don't want to see elite crews invalidated entirely but I think if the entire scheme pool looked more like Breakthrough than Let Them Bleed then there would be less complaining about the likes of Outflank or Bait and Switch. They still might not be schemes that are necessarily easy to score, each for their own reasons, but they aren't helped when other schemes are just so comparatively trivial. Make everything harder, make scoring every point and still playing attrition virtually impossible for elite crews, and suddenly more AP intensive schemes or ones that might need fewer AP but a certain amount of stars aligning become more attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RisingPhoenix Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 9 hours ago, Adran said: I may be wrong, but I assumed that this was part of an attempt to try and increase the use of the cheaper models. After all, one of the biggest advantage of 2 cheap models is they get twice as many actions, and the quality of an interact action is identical if you cost 3 ss or 11 ss. If that was the plan, I don't think it worked, but that might just be because there were still enough schemes that didn't need that level of action to still be able to pick the elite list and score high enough whilst still being able to kill the cheap models fast enough they didn't out score you. Then they REALLY better make both points scorable before endgame because the idea that a 4-5 stone model lives through round 5 is laughable - you'd basically have to table your opponent to guarantee that and if you table your opponent then everything else is pretty academic. You know my feelings that 4-5 stone models are simply mathematically underpowered and no amount of fiddling with schemes will correct math, but if they really want to try that they need to have the scoring wrapped up quickly, because those things are gonna explode if you look at them crosseyed. An undermentioned factor in elite crews becoming better in M3E is that you need to be effective through round 5 to score schemes, and cheap models are usually made of tissue paper (with a few notable exceptions - most of which are the 'models people take'). I understand that Wyrd didn't like the games that ended in round 2-3 because one player had scored an insurmountable lead, but the changes to Strategies effectively addressed that. If Outflank could score 1 point in round 2 and 1 point in round 3 it'd still probably be bad, but at least there'd be an idea you could score it with two desperate mercenaries or something. It's unlikely, but it might happen. But imagining that desperate mercenary sitting on the sidelines waiting for round 5 hoping to live... yeah. They need a buff anyway, but having to have them sit there for 3 rounds with the scheme revealed hoping the opponent doesn't have resources to kill a model that dies to a loud sneeze is not plausible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniacal_cackle Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 The big risky thing is if you make schemes too hard, some players will just go "kill the opponent and neither of us score schemes " But strategies can help with that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RisingPhoenix Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 6 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said: The big risky thing is if you make schemes too hard, some players will just go "kill the opponent and neither of us score schemes " But strategies can help with that. Yeah, I think especially with current minion design if you make schemes too much harder you're going to get people who bring enough cheap minions to score schemes running into an Ophelia gunline or the like and just watching their cheap minions vanish. Like "wow, I brought 11 models which is what I need to score 8 points" but then Ophelia vaporizes 3 of them on turn 1 and another 3 on turn 2 and the game ends in a 4-2 victory with one side being tabled. Especially with M3E scheme design, if you're dead you can't score. And we are a short hop to the point where making the opponent dead is easier than scoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Vening Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said: Especially with M3E scheme design, if you're dead you can't score. And we are a short hop to the point where making the opponent dead is easier than scoring. Yeah, that was the thing in the earlier editions, that killing models was an alternate way to prevent them scoring. Now it appears to be the primary way. That while a model that was massively outmatched (ie, 2-4SS vs 9-11SS) would only be a speedbump, now it's models that are relatively closer. Some of it may be the number of +AP and Min3 that is out there. When a model is capable of doing 9+ damage in a turn without that much resource investment, it can be an issue. Another is maybe the change to Focus applying across turns. In 1st Ed, it was only during the activation (2AP attack once at + to attack and damage). In 2nd Ed, it expired EoT (which allowed other models to boost models before activating). Now, that it's "until used or removed", it means stacking even just a small amount early increases lethality later, as it allows high variable damage tracks to eliminate even middle class models. Maybe the Focus cap, and the change to Distracted changes that, have to see how that plays out. I don't want to see attacks being ineffectual, but there's a difference between taking 2-3 turns to remove a similar costed model, and 2-3 actions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordZombie Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 I would like to see some strats that include holding an objective. I know it would not fly for a tournament based setting, but a strat with a random outcome. Such as get to a point and flip a certain suit or number. Maybe something with only one side being able to score, such as holding a token or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said: The big risky thing is if you make schemes too hard, some players will just go "kill the opponent and neither of us score schemes " But strategies can help with that. That sounds... exactly like the kind of dynamic we should be shooting for, does it not? One player brings a high model count schemey crew to try and score 8 points. The other player brings a low model count elite crew unlikely to score more than 4-5 points, hoping to kill enough enemy models that that will be enough to win. That's only problematic if one of those strategies is clearly more viable than another. Which it might be if the balancing isn't done well. I don't know if anyone could realistically say one of those would be problematically dominant right now for sure though, seeing as we've had easy to score attrition-oriented schemes in every Gaining Grounds so far. Let alone if it would problematic after an errata that (hopefully) sees some targeted buffs to some of the worst performing low cost models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litano Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said: Then they REALLY better make both points scorable before endgame because the idea that a 4-5 stone model lives through round 5 is laughable - you'd basically have to table your opponent to guarantee that and if you table your opponent then everything else is pretty academic. You know my feelings that 4-5 stone models are simply mathematically underpowered and no amount of fiddling with schemes will correct math, but if they really want to try that they need to have the scoring wrapped up quickly, because those things are gonna explode if you look at them crosseyed. Is there a version of your proposal where some schemes can be scored twice before the end of a game and others can't? I think that decreeing that all schemes can be double-scored before the end of game would create a lot of headache. How do we decide when the second half of a scheme like Hidden Martyrs is checked, for instance? It's not that these issues are unsolvable per se, but addressing them WOULD force more changes, which in turn increases the likelihood of unintended emergent gameplay patterns. It just seems like all of this can quickly create tons of knock-on effects, but know that you've thought through this rule change much more than I have, so I'd love to hear your thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniacal_cackle Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Azahul said: That's only problematic if one of those strategies is clearly more viable than another. I think that's the issue with this edition, though - the overall design of the edition is that elite is more viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said: I think that's the issue with this edition, though - the overall design of the edition is that elite is more viable. Yep, but so far elite crews have always had AP-efficient schemes to go for. Making scoring ever harder for smaller crews could shift the balance. Or it might just lead to lower scoring games overall (I hear you're a fan of that outcome too though! ). Won't know until we try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RisingPhoenix Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Litano said: Is there a version of your proposal where some schemes can be scored twice before the end of a game and others can't? I think that decreeing that all schemes can be double-scored before the end of game would create a lot of headache. How do we decide when the second half of a scheme like Hidden Martyrs is checked, for instance? It's not that these issues are unsolvable per se, but addressing them WOULD force more changes, which in turn increases the likelihood of unintended emergent gameplay patterns. It just seems like all of this can quickly create tons of knock-on effects, but know that you've thought through this rule change much more than I have, so I'd love to hear your thoughts. Obviously this would be with the drop of a new gaining grounds. Some schemes like Hidden Martyrs could remain end of game only. Others like Outflank there are no issues with scoring in rounds 2/4 or whatever. And any new gaining grounds releases new schemes and refreshes the scheme pool. Hidden Martyrs (or any other end game scheme) could simply read "At end of game, if the other model is alive..." If 7-10 of the schemes are scorable during the game, and the remaining 3-6 are scorable at end game, you give choices - elite crews can pick the end game schemes which, like Hidden Martyrs, might take very few actions during the round (you can complete hidden martyrs with 0 AP spent), while crews who are focusing more on using AP during the game to score could score before all their cheaper models are destroyed by the elite crew. For all of Malifaux's history up to 3E it's worked this way. We've got lots of data on how it works, it works fine. You can tell from how the rules are written the designers have thought of this, it's easy to make a reality. I don't see it would introduce any confusion, the rules "you can only score one point on a scheme each round" still work whether point 2 is scorable in the next round, or at the end of the game. 2 hours ago, Azahul said: That sounds... exactly like the kind of dynamic we should be shooting for, does it not? One player brings a high model count schemey crew to try and score 8 points. The other player brings a low model count elite crew unlikely to score more than 4-5 points, hoping to kill enough enemy models that that will be enough to win. That's only problematic if one of those strategies is clearly more viable than another. Which it might be if the balancing isn't done well. I don't know if anyone could realistically say one of those would be problematically dominant right now for sure though, seeing as we've had easy to score attrition-oriented schemes in every Gaining Grounds so far. Let alone if it would problematic after an errata that (hopefully) sees some targeted buffs to some of the worst performing low cost models. Mate, you can play this out right now. Pick 5 heavy scheme marker strategies like Outflank, Spread Them Out, Detonate Charges, etc. Have one player bring a big crew full of cheap models that can drop scheme markers, have the other bring an elite crew. It's not some great mystery what will happen, the cheap and plentiful crew will lose. It's not something we don't know, I've seen people do this in scheme marker heavy pools and it always fails. The cheap models are just mathematically flawed, on the whole (with a few exceptions). You can go check out ES for how Wyrd designs them with the benefit of more testing, the new ones are much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 14 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said: Mate, you can play this out right now. Pick 5 heavy scheme marker strategies like Outflank, Spread Them Out, Detonate Charges, etc. Have one player bring a big crew full of cheap models that can drop scheme markers, have the other bring an elite crew. It's not some great mystery what will happen, the cheap and plentiful crew will lose. It's not something we don't know, I've seen people do this in scheme marker heavy pools and it always fails. The cheap models are just mathematically flawed, on the whole (with a few exceptions). You can go check out ES for how Wyrd designs them with the benefit of more testing, the new ones are much better. The post you're quoting did also say that it would go hand in hand with targeted buffs to the lowest performing models, to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniacal_cackle Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Azahul said: Yep, but so far elite crews have always had AP-efficient schemes to go for. Making scoring ever harder for smaller crews could shift the balance. Or it might just lead to lower scoring games overall (I hear you're a fan of that outcome too though! ). Won't know until we try. Yeah, but I'm not sure there are many hypothetical schemes that: Are scorable by small models Are not scorable by big models Are not optimised by just ignoring it and focusing on killing. Involve running around dropping scheme markers. You could have something quite specific, of course. "Have three models cost 5 or less on the opponent's table half" for example. EDIT: I suppose AP-heavy stuff could work if you could start with it from your side of the board. For instance, interacting with stuff on your own table half could help out small models as they don't face the 'walk tax.' But that would lead to terrible gameplay more generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azahul Posted February 4, 2022 Report Share Posted February 4, 2022 39 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said: Yeah, but I'm not sure there are many hypothetical schemes that: Are scorable by small models Are not scorable by big models Are not optimised by just ignoring it and focusing on killing. Involve running around dropping scheme markers. You could have something quite specific, of course. "Have three models cost 5 or less on the opponent's table half" for example. EDIT: I suppose AP-heavy stuff could work if you could start with it from your side of the board. For instance, interacting with stuff on your own table half could help out small models as they don't face the 'walk tax.' But that would lead to terrible gameplay more generally. I don't think the Walk tax is as bad as all that. In return for paying it you get to be in several different points at once, and you have the AP to pay for it. Always struck me as more relevant for attrition discussions (where you typically want to bring all your AP to the one point) than scheming. But yes, there are a few ways to make cheaper models explicitly more important in schemes as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.