Neverborn Kidnap scheme VS Kirrai

[gregdorf]

Agreed, sure army of the dead is easy to get points but it is not an auto 2 points and it does take a minor amount of effort for the resser to accomplish. Kidnap could be accomplished with no effort for the Neverborn. My other problem with it is because it is not announced in a tournament situation I could see someone taking it and not being honest on who they are going to pick as their kidnap targets.

All this means is there is going to have to be more effort for tournament organizers to make sure everything is fair.

[alemon]

Agreed, sure army of the dead is easy to get points but it is not an auto 2 points and it does take a minor amount of effort for the resser to accomplish. Kidnap could be accomplished with no effort for the Neverborn. My other problem with it is because it is not announced in a tournament situation I could see someone taking it and not being honest on who they are going to pick as their kidnap targets.

All this means is there is going to have to be more effort for tournament organizers to make sure everything is fair.

We already write down our schemes, announced or not, with the targets or terrain features written down. Couldn't this be done in a competitive environment as well?

[tadaka]

I think you nailed it on this one. Based on what the description of insignificant is in book one and as far as I know this did not change in book 2. "Insignificant models do not count for scenario winning or losing conditions". Depending on how one wants to look at it you cant pick them at all or If the other side picked them they would be unable to achieve the conditions to get there points.

I would have to disagree. I think it's a matter of consistency in wording, but the rules stating that insignificant models do not count towards strategies are schemes still stands, even if not specifically listed. There was no change to that rule. Sometimes it explicitly states it, but that doesn't change the definition of insignificant.

[Q'iq'el]

Agreed, sure army of the dead is easy to get points but it is not an auto 2 points and it does take a minor amount of effort for the resser to accomplish.

Granted, the newer version is a bit harder, because only corpse counters count, but if you actually win the game and the opponent is losing models, you simply have to stop rezzing once you don't need more models.

If you lack counters, you can always kill your own models in the last turn or 2 and get the counters.

Kidnap could be accomplished with no effort for the Neverborn. My other problem with it is because it is not announced in a tournament situation I could see someone taking it and not being honest on who they are going to pick as their kidnap targets.

Just like Army of the Dead, which is very hard to do against some masters and very easy against all kinds of hordes, Kidnap isn't auto-win either, if you face highly survivable elite crew with models like Gunlinger or the Family.

As for the tournaments, you should always record everything before the game anyway.

All this means is there is going to have to be more effort for tournament organizers to make sure everything is fair.

Doesn't Book 2 offer "Core Encounters" for the purpose of tournaments? You can cut off the Schemes completely and you have no issue at all.

[Q'iq'el]

Here is my real issue with this schemes its 2 points and because you don't announce it makes it very hard to work against it. I have no problem with people cherry picking easy 1 point schemes but 2 pointers should require work.

Thing that bugs me about this is you can get 2 points for this and do nothing but pick it vs some crews. At least things like hold out only give 1 point.

How is that different than Thwart or Sabotage? In Thwart you get 1 VP for nothing at all (it's all up to your opponent)! Sabotage is something you can't prevent in any way at all.

The thing is, if your opponent doesn't announce the Scheme, you have to predict what he might have taken and work against it. It's part of being good Malifaux player that you know which schemes are for which crews, how they work against certain matchups (i.e. when Kidnap is profitable and when it isn't) and how to counter them.

The fact that some schemes in some situations automatically give 1 or 2 VP means only that you have to find a scheme or two that are just as easy to get, which again, is part of understanding how the game works.

Let's face it, Kirai's own score is very easy to pull off if you don't announce it either and almost impossible to prevent if you announce it anyway.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Q'iq'el

[ProdigalPunk]

I think you nailed it on this one. Based on what the description of insignificant is in book one and as far as I know this did not change in book 2. "Insignificant models do not count for scenario winning or losing conditions". Depending on how one wants to look at it you cant pick them at all or If the other side picked them they would be unable to achieve the conditions to get there points.

Errata Page 1: "replace with: Insignificant models do not count towards some encounter victory conditions"

[Q'iq'el]

Errata Page 1: "replace with: Insignificant models do not count towards some encounter victory conditions"

Heh, even an experienced player can get lost in all the changes sometimes.

That is to say I remembered Insignificant models don't count only in strategies/schemes that say so, but I didn't remember why... then you start searching in the Book and page 21 pops out...

[tadaka]

Gah 2 set of errata and an faq on top of 2 books and surely another errata for book 2 on the way heh can any one say maze.

[Q'iq'el]

Gah 2 set of errata and an faq on top of 2 books and surely another errata for book 2 on the way heh can any one say maze.

My not-so-silent-now hope is they are actually using the occasion to unify all the Errata documents for Book 1 and Book2.

Would explain why the Marshalls are so busy. :stupido:

[tadaka]

I do not think its different. I think some of the conditions are 2 easy for the points. I have only had the chance to play so many games with the new book this one stood out to me as a Kirrai player as I run in to it a lot. Many of the ones in book one had to be changed. My guess is book 2 will need a bunch of changes as well. I think we will see this one as a change.

Like I said before I think the answer to solve this one is add insignificant but time and Wyrd will tell on this.

I would like to see any of the 2 point objectives as a challenge to get even if it is one I like. My personal thought is the one point objectives should be easy and 2 points should require some effort.

How is that different than Thwart or Sabotage? In Thwart you get 1 VP for nothing at all (it's all up to your opponent)! Sabotage is something you can't prevent in any way at all.

[tadaka]

Eh I am to the point i am thinking of rewriting all the book rules in to one document I cant print out and add in the errata.

That being said I do not envy the Marshalls. There is a reason GW only gives models 3 options walk shoot and charge

My not-so-silent-now hope is they are actually using the occasion to unify all the Errata documents for Book 1 and Book2.

Would explain why the Marshalls are so busy. :stupido:

[Q'iq'el]

I do not think its different. I think some of the conditions are 2 easy for the points. I have only had the chance to play so many games with the new book this one stood out to me as a Kirrai player as I run in to it a lot. Many of the ones in book one had to be changed. My guess is book 2 will need a bunch of changes as well. I think we will see this one as a change.

Well, Kidnap isn't a new Scheme. It is the one that got updated from book 1. In book 1 it required killing opponent master. If you had assassination it was automatic 2VP bonus to the Strategy. If not, it was pretty much worthless. So what you see now actually is an updated Book 1 scheme, which means it's more likely to remain the way it is.

It was clearly changed to be an independent objective from the main Strategy. Perhaps it will be changed to exclude Insignificant models, but it still will be very easy to complete against some crews.

The only thing to be said really is that the Schemes and in fact the entire game are not designed to be perfectly balanced for every crew. It is the point of this entire system, that you tailor your crew for each mission and each opponent you face (the later somewhat less, because ideally you don't know your opponent's crew when you select your master and hire your crew - in practice you almost always know it).

That means you, as Kirai player, are not supposed to choose only the models having perfect synergy with her, but also tweak the crew and put some other models in it should the need arise.

Strategy is the big thing. Getting 4 points off it means almost always a win, in some circumstances draw.

Schemes can tip the scales and turn a draw into victory, but more often than not are a distraction that makes it harder to win. The fact that you get 2SS for not taking a Scheme now is huge - you can grab one or two more models into your crew and you'll still get SS pool of at least 4+Master's. You can focus on your Strategy and on messing up opponent's Strategy and Schemes won't help him all that much.

Sure, an almost auto-complete 2VP scheme is nice to have, but none of these schemes is a completely no-brainer choice. You have to consider your Strategy and you have to consider your opponent. What works against some crews on some table may be impossible to execute on others or against other opponents.

In that sense choosing right Schemes in itself is a skill and that's what you get these extra VPs for.

TLDR version: That Kirai's default crew is very weak against Kidnap doesn't make it a problem. Tweak your crew - that's how the game works. Crews are not balanced by default, you balance them for Strategy, scenario, location and often the opponent's crew/faction, by tweaking your list each time you play.

Yes, you need to build a bigger collection for that. I think it comes easily with time, if you enjoy the game.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Q'iq'el

[Svenn]

It was clearly changed to be an independent objective from the main Strategy. Perhaps it will be changed to exclude Insignificant models, but it still will be very easy to complete against some crews.

It doesn't need to be changed to exclude insignificant models. The rule is that unless otherwise specified an insignificant model does not count towards a strategy or scheme. Since it's NOT specified in this case, then they don't count for this scheme. The rules are pretty clear about this. The only way an insignificant model can be used for a strategy/scheme is if it is explicitly stated that they CAN be.

[Q'iq'el]

It doesn't need to be changed to exclude insignificant models. The rule is that unless otherwise specified an insignificant model does not count towards a strategy or scheme. Since it's NOT specified in this case, then they don't count for this scheme. The rules are pretty clear about this. The only way an insignificant model can be used for a strategy/scheme is if it is explicitly stated that they CAN be.

Would you kindly point me to the rule you speak about? Or quote it?

Because in the errata file I have the rule says the insignificant models do not count towards victory conditions of some scenarios.

Now "some" scenarios are not "all" the scenarios or "most" scenarios - they are subgroup. Logically speaking there is a subgroup of scenarios where Insignificant models do not count and these scenarios mention Insignificant models not counting.

Other scenarios obviously allow for Insignificant models to count.

Coincidentaly, Books seem to support that line of thinking - you'll find scenarios mentioning Insignificant models do not count, but you'll find no single one mentioning Insignificant models do count (as far as I remember).

I doubt authors engage in so much irrelevant rule-writing - if their intention was to make insignificant models not counting at all, they wouldn't errata original rule or specify the scenarios where these models do not count.

[tadaka]

Q'iq'el this is one we will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

In my humble opinion the scheme is pretty much a no brainer to take. Unless you are just out to have fun or are trying to Challenge your self. For the record I think it is very cool to push your self to be a better player. I have no problem winning VS this scheme that does not mean I think it is balanced. This was never intended to be a thread crying about it(I will even bite and after I look back on my post I do sound annoyed by it). At the very start I asked what other players thought about it. If you felt I was crying that it could not be beat that was not in any way my goal of this thread.

Btw for any Kirrai players she can be played with out them and its fun to try and will do wonders to improve her play to start with out her main defense. If any one tries I recommend a hoard of Gaki.

Edited September 7, 2010 by tadaka

[Q'iq'el]

No I don't mean that at all. I understand your concern about balance of this particular Scheme against your particular crew.

What I'm trying to say is that this is completely OK. That's how that game works. Pick up a Scheme that is no-brainer against the Neverborn crew you face.

Or perhaps the designers are acknowledging Neverborn have hard time against hordes of cheap but hitty models and especially Ressurectionists and gave them a Scheme that balances this weakness with easy to grab 2VP?

In other words, I think your critique is too one-sided. I'm trying to argue, that you have to consider entire-system in judging whether this Scheme is too easy or not.

That the scenario is difficult against some crews (other Neverborn crew, esp. Nephilim based, Ortegas etc.) is a clue that it may serve such a balancing purpose.

[tadaka]

You very well could be right and that's what they had in mind. Eh I did not think that as I think that as a whole the neverborn masters are well done and powerful vs any crew. Most of the neverborn players in my local area do very well. If you think they needed a crutch vs some crews the designers may well agree.

[megnc86]

hm...looks like this thread never had an 'official' ruling. Anyone still reading you little thread...?

[Cunning]

Why does it need a ruling? The scheme is very clear. You might think it needs changing but as is there is no need for a ruling.

[ukrocky]

Still not as easy as sabotage (y)

[rancor709]

If you see neverborn don't do a grow list. Why give them free points if you dont' have to. And as always you can just take one of the easy schemes to do and reeven the playing field.

[Fetid Strumpet]

What easy scheme? I get tired of hearing this argument because their isn't a particularly easy scheme to take just because you opponent is playing NB. The Resser faction and master specific schemes are somewhat hard to pull off.

[megnc86]

Why does it need a ruling? The scheme is very clear. You might think it needs changing but as is there is no need for a ruling.

Based on the 4 pages of discussion I see a least some of it was rules based. The scheme was written one way in one book then updated in a significant way and people want to know if targeting insignificant models is a valid interpretation given the scenario. I think that merits a comment from someone who has the authority to do so.

[micahwc]

Still not as easy as sabotage (y)

Or power ritual with a coryphee duet.

[M_Ruckuss]

I have played multiple times against a mates Collette crew. He always takes sabotage. He always gets it off. I always jokingly mock him. We always laugh about it. And thats how it is done. Do I get angry? No. Frustrated? No.

Its 8 points to guarantee a win or draw. I would say focus on you own VP. Kidnap is pretty awesome, but I still don't think it is as good as sabotage, and I don't complain about that! I will admit to taking it in almost any game I think will be tough or against new masters- we all have our favourite schemes. Its been used against me before- if NB player chooses the cheap and cheerful models use them to lure him in and then start killing his models in return-sure its 2vp to him but if you do it right you can screw plans up and kill off his models. Its hardly the be=all and end all. And is it any worse than getting a vp for keeping the tank that is Jack Daw alive?

I, personally, think the schemes work fine. A fun way to occasionally play is to pick random schemes, or a friend to pick 2 for you.

At tournaments...thats the way the cookie crumbles atm