Jump to content

Benesato

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Benesato last won the day on November 6

Benesato had the most liked content!

About Benesato

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Benesato

    Brick's blind spot

    Hmm. I was thinking in terms of more traditional game conventions, where things are measured from above, and 'touching' rather than 'passing over' tend to be used. But if a line were to be drawn touching the extreme outer edge of all three 30mm bases, then despite the fact that it's touching all three models, it would not technically pass over the intervening base. I assume that's what you mean. Weird, but this makes sense according to the letter of the rule. I guess I was wrong. Not sure why this isn't in the rules clarification thread, since surely it's a question that pops up fairly often.
  2. Benesato

    Brick's blind spot

    From the S4 rulebook: Charging To perform a charge, the active model selects a target enemy model that’s in its LOS and pays any applicable costs (usually 2 influence). Line of Sight A model has LOS to a target spot, another model, or a goalpost as long as an unobstructed straight line may be drawn from any point on the model’s base to the target spot or to any point on the other model’s or goalpost’s base. A line is considered obstructed if it passes through terrain that blocks LOS or if it passes over the base of an intervening model. So the geometry would create a Counter-Charge deadzone (or 'blind spot') for a 2" melee range model keeping at the furthest distance from Brick, as shown in the diagram. But, due to Brick's base being 40mm, the geometry means there can never be a line-of-sight blind spot for a 30mm-base figure to hide behind another 30mm-base figure, since the line-of-sight rules states that line of sight can be drawn "from any point on the model’s base to...any point on the other model’s." But if they were all 30mm-based figures, they should be able to block LOS if perfectly aligned, thanks to the geometry, since no line could be drawn at a tangent to the charging model and its target without also intersecting the intervening model's base at a tangent.
  3. Hi, guys. Something that's been bothering me when I'm looking at my team composition for the Masons is Chisel. You know when you first lay eyes on a model or piece of character art, and fall in love with it? Well, Chisel's on that list for me. When I first came across the model, with its weird, relaxed, somewhat menacing pose, I like it. When I checked the artwork and character card out on the Wiki, I loved it. The weird, quirky, violent, angsty, sadistic, adult-themed traits and plays were refreshingly interesting for a more mundane person (not a vampire, not a wild orc, not some demon cultist - just a slightly psycho young lady). But flash forward to Season 4, and she's a bit like an old piece of chewing gum that's lost its flavour. It looks the same, but has no flavour. No more Crazy, Sadism, or Painful Rage to make for tough decisions (both using her, and playing against her). Now her traits and plays are: You get a bit of damage as a freebie, you can make your opponent lose a bit of influence, and if you manage to Take Out an opponent you get a bit of armour. Now she's old chewing gum, if you ask me. Three issues I have with this: 1. Unless I'm missing something, Intensity is really just 'Use Iron Fist for free each turn' and is a complete no-brainer to be used every activation. Maybe there is some punishment ability I can't think of or find that can trigger when Chisel uses her Iron Fist play for free, but if not then her (1) (2) (><) (3) (4) bottom row could just be switched for (2) (3) (><) (4) (5), and Intensity and Iron Fist could be purged entirely to achieve the exact same purpose. (If I'm missing something here, please let me know, as I haven't digested the game's nuances entirely yet). 2. Poor old Chisel has lost all her flavour. She went from being a modest Attack damage-dealer with significant conditional extra damage potential from traits and plays, to more of pure Attack damage dealer with her +2 TAC and Iron Fist. 3. Poor old Chisel has also lost most of her depth and nuance. She was one of the few Masons characters with some atypical, Morticians-esque punishment abilities, and now she's probably equally good, but less Black Widow with angst and depth, and more 'Hulk SMASH!' With the following in mind, please bring on any discussion, and feel free to tell me where and how you disagree or think I'm wrong. I've got my own perspective on this. From the get-go I liked the fact that Guild Ball is a bit of a politically incorrect, adult game, in stark contrast to most tabletop miniature games (and they use proper English spelling, to boot!), and that it was a deliberately more complex, deep, nuanced game than, say, that BBoldemort game. So, despite the fact that watering some of that down to appeal to a wider market may ultimately broaden its appeal, I'm personally quite resistant to losing the essence that made it what it was in the first place, so I'm resistant to things like Chisel being de-flavoured in the process. A significant change like Seenah's playbook/traits changes to S4 are clearly a tweaking and re-balancing effort, with no loss of flavour (just a small change of flavour). So it's not change, per se, that I grumble about, but changes where something is lost without being replaced with something as good.
  4. Benesato

    Traps mechanics changing.

    "Have at thee. Take this. Take that! Now, good sir, please refrain from retaliatory impulses momentarily as I whittle barbs into the business end of this here man-trap I have set for thee." As a preparatory measure, I think the idea is sound. But as a mid-battle Playbook result, it doesn't feel right to me. I can stretch my imagination juuuust enough to accept Veteran Minx throwing down a pre-set trap mid battle in some Hollywood-esque move. I can stretch my imagination a bit less to imagine Egret, in the distraction of the battle between Minx and her for, quickly applying some of her arrows' poison to the trap while not directly engaged herself. But I can't stretch my imagination far enough to see any character quickly enhancing a trap between blows. That's also why I'd personally (as I mentioned earlier) be in favour of a change preventing traps from being laid out and triggered as part of battle. Placing a trap and pushing somebody into it in the same activation just seems a bit wrong to me. A long-term setup rather than a clunky mid-battle bonus of Snare/damage seems more fitting and interesting to me. Enhancing principally out of battle rather than exclusively part of Playbook battle results seems like a good way to push that theme a little without the need to overhaul the existing trap placement mechanics. Thanks again for the discussion. I'm glad I took the gamble and risked finally returning to a game forum (I've avoided them for over a decade, as typically forums for games are more toxic than Compound's arm-pits!)
  5. Benesato

    Traps mechanics changing.

    A very fair point. I guess I didn't consider that my 'Bad for the consumer' sense is only one end of the spectrum for an expression that goes right up to 'Completely against the consumer'. Guild Ball's problems are bad for the consumer is the sense I meant, as you clearly worked out in the end. My bad. Yikes. I guess my time away from tabletop gaming has seen a few darker changes than I realised. It sounds like I've lost touch with the tabletop games industry on my hiatus. I guess that should probably come as no surprise when, alongside it, PC gaming has collectively dumped proper key-binding customisation, and pushed power creep, day-one DLCs, pay-to-win, lootboxes, and pre-order exclusives down our throats. I hope not. I really, really hope they naively took away a chunk of Jaecar's uniqueness and value, rather than cynically stripping away his Bleed to make Mataagi more appealing to drive Hunters players to buy the Falconers. That's kind of common practice for products of all kinds (games of any kind in particular). The optimistic part of me hopes that the cynical part of me is wrong about this. Thanks for the feedback. Always good to know when and where I'm failing to communicate clearly. As for Jaecar, the mention of having a trap-altering aura got me thinking about how cool (and, with regards to rules and game complexity, pretty simple) it would be if players could enhance a trap with an ability. What if some Hunter characters could have Plays something like: Jaecar: Whittle Barbs (CST1) (RNG 1") (SUS ✔) (OPT ✔) Target single friendly trap within range is enhanced with bleed. When triggered, the trap's target suffers the bleed condition in addition to its normal trap effects. [Place a bleed token on the trap to indicate it is enhanced] Egret: Apply Poison (CST1) (RNG 1") (SUS ✔) (OPT ✔) Target single friendly trap within range is enhanced with poison. When triggered, the trap's target suffers the poison condition in addition to its normal trap effects. [Place a poison token on the trap to indicate it is enhanced] Ulfr: Added Blades (CST1) (RNG 1") (SUS ✔) (OPT ✔) Target single friendly trap within range is enhanced with 1 DMG. When triggered, the trap's target suffers 1 DMG in addition to its normal trap effects. [Place a Blades token on the trap to indicate it is enhanced. Only one Blades token may be placed on any trap] Egret's card is getting a bit full, but Jaecar and Ulfr could certainly fit these on. Balance-wise, is it worth spending an extra INF (and, if not the original layer of the trap, moving over near it) to enhance the trap, knowing that the enemy is that much more likely to just avoid it? A trap with both bleed and poison would be nasty, but then they're just conditions, so with 3 conditions it would be a no-brainer to just use Rest. And, since it would require multiple activations, it's not like the Hunters pull the old Jaecar create-trap-then-push-into-straight-away trick with an uber-enhanced trap. Fairly often the extra INF would be better spent doing something else, so balance-wise I really don't see it being too big a deal, but it would restore some of the uniqueness of trap/character interactions, and it would shut up players like me! Any other ideas out there?
  6. Benesato

    Traps mechanics changing.

    "They have been honest from the get-go that the Order models were intended for a minor guild and not the Union. They allowed the models to be played with the Union until the minor guild was officially released." Fair enough, for anybody who's been with Steamforged for a long time now. But for a new player coming along who wants to buy some figures and get into the game, they may buy "in good faith" (I didn't say removing them was not in good faith, but talked about buying them in good faith; a subtle but important difference) figures that very clearly have the Union card with them, and reasonably believe that the figure is therefore, of course, a valid Union figure. That's consistent with, well, pretty much every other game developer's practice forever. It's anti-consumer to have fine print, asterisks, and "Didn't ya know?" policies. From a game consumer's point of view, certain things are givens, such as a character's team affiliation being inviolable. I think it's fair to assert that it's a major unspoken rule of tabletop gaming, so to break it is unwise, and is going to be a negative, anti-consumer experience for new players. Dual-affiliation would have solved all of these problems. For a game that's already a bit of a nightmare for a new consumer to handle (sets sold out, on indefinite pre-order status, 3-player starter sets, blisters and bags with singles, different models, metals, plastics, and resins, boxes with widly different presentation, different versions of the same character on different guilds, and prices that vary wildly from seller to seller for no apparent reason) the added question of whether the figures they want to buy are actually still valid for the guild the figure clearly belongs to on the packaging is a very poor, anti-consumer business choice I think. I'd love to see Guild Ball grow and thrive, but it's in a really fractured state right now for a consumer. Perhaps less so where some of you live (here in Australia, and as an online customer, it's very patchy). I realise many of the problems for consumers are due to the teething problems Steamforged is having in this brave new world of games and miniature production. But they can't afford to pass on too many of their teething problems to the consumer if they want to succeed in the long term. Perhaps they just don't have the luxury of distance, objectivity, and a new consumer's perspective, but if they did I think they'd seriously look at addressing the issue and creating a clearer roadmap so that consumers, new and old, know the current state of the game and where things are going. A good start would be to update that Guild Ball Wiki on Fandom! I know it's not their official site or anything, but many of us (particularly Warframe players) search for a game's Wiki when we first start to research it. That's where I first started looking into individual characters and their cards and abilities, and it wasn't until very recently that I even found out that almost every card was entirely obsolete and wrong. As for Jaecar's changes, it does look a bit like a pendulum swing. Did they really have to strip him of both his Bleed abilities? Oh, right; The Hunters do Snare, Snare, and more Snare. One Bleed and one Poison is all they get! By now I'm sure you may have noticed that I'm a person who picks very specific things apart in fine detail. Overall I think Guild Ball is a fantastic game that is a bit too expensive to draw many new players in (but the cheap Kick Off! seems to have been a tremendously effective way to bring new players into the fold on a budget, and a brilliant move by Steamforged), in a messy, tumultuous place for consumers with their patchy pricing and availability, and therefore in desperate need of some stability, good PR, and a clear roadmap of the future of their game and product releases to ensure its long-term success. Being an old-school gamer, but a very new Guild Ball player with a keen eye for the consumer experience, I figure I can offer a bit of a unique perspective. But, for the record, I have already spent a chunk of money on their overpriced, silly little Hunters' Guild dollies.
  7. Benesato

    Traps mechanics changing.

    Thanks for the great, constructive comments, guys. I'm trying to come to grips with the changes and accept them, despite my strong dislike for them. ultimogringo, I really do get that Snare is great (to quote myself: "Snare is great"). But I think with too much Snare available the trade-off and tough team roster decisions are missing. Veteran Minx missing that trade-mark Snare was a tactical trade-off. She was a bit of an oddball, but now she's just one of the Hunters' Guild gang, throwing out Snare. I really don't care about power; I care about choices, trade-offs, balance, fun, and thematic consistency. And yes, we can still have clever placement of traps, but with the which-trap variable thrown out, now the only variable is where. BigThumbToe, I think you've probably captured my fears right there: "And while the snare can start to get repetitive and feel useless, having your opponents entire team snared feels so 'Hunter'. " Yes, it's thematic, but it's also now a bit more of a one-trick pony I think. There's a fine line between it 'being their thing' and being a common tactic, and just being 'their one thing' and becoming de rigueur. Larhendiel, am I misssing something here? They haven't actually removed Seasoned Brisket from the Union entirely, have they? I mean, it's bad enough in a sense that, say, another guild might steal Veteran Chaska from the Hunters' Guild, and the poor old Hunters' Guild would be stuck only being able to field the original. But they haven't set the precendet for actually stripping characters we've bought in good faith from the Guilds they were originally shipped with, have they? I hope you're mistaken, because that's a ghastly anti-consumer move if you're right.
  8. Benesato

    Traps mechanics changing.

    I'm a Guild Ball newbie. I've already spent money on Guild Ball, and I have been stewing over what to buy and where to complete my Hunters' Guild roster. But then I came across the new trap rules, and I was taken aback. I'll explain why, despite the fact that I'm sure it's too late and will fall on deaf ears, and in light of what seems to be a majority view that the new trap rules are a good thing. Please bear with me with regards to my verbosity (precision over concision), and if I make any mistakes in my references to rules or characters. Without further ado, why I think it's a very negative change, and some rebuttal to why people think the changes are positive: 1. Even worse value for money, and making anything obsolete is bad. The old Blessed Of The Sun Father box is hardly cheap or great value. Now, apart from the player cards all being obsolete, Jaecar's trap model is now obsolete. "Just use any old 30mm base or piece of cardboard" is the gist of many replies. Well, honestly, I could just cut out a 30mm pieces of cardboard and write "Chaska" on it and, voila, I now have Chaska in my roster. I don't have Seenah yet. Just give me 30 seconds to cut one out.... I bought the set partly because of the trap being an actual, sculpted figure. Tabletop gaming (especially when we're paying the price of half a dozen good PC games for half a dozen little pieces of metal or plastic) is, for many of us, about the figures, and the artwork, and the painting, and presenting our army/guild/team with pride. So, honestly, the suggestion of using a generic substitute and accepting the obsolescence of Jaecar's trap seems rather a feeble 'solution'. We pay good money for quality products, and when part of our product is made obsolete, 'Just use <insert crummy, generic alternative>' doesn't help, really. 2. Traps are now generic. In a game that's all about a handful of team members who all feel deeply individual and carefully crafted, Veteran Minx's Jawbone Trap, Jaecar's Pitfall Trap, and Chaska's Big Game Trap, are now all the same generic thing. Rather than serving slightly different functions, and Jaecar having the uniquely larger (but single) trap, all three characters use a generic trait to create generic traps. Many have argued that it's a net buff to traps. That's debateable. Jaecar's trap, with its zero damage but Snared/Bleed condition combo, was a no-brainer to use Rest and remove both conditions. Now it's better to be forced to suffer either 1 DMG or Snared, some argue. But in the process, Jaecar's unique ability to apply Bleed was removed, and he's now a more generic character. Minx's traps are arguably better now. But the very fact that she had pure-damage traps, fitting with her savage, psycho, 'Why snare them when you can maim them?' theme, made her quite distinct and unique among the Hunters. Now; generic traps for a slightly more generic character. 3. Traps are now limited to 5, but not character-limited? So Jaecar can now lay down a free trap every turn for 5 straight turns, but the moment he places his 5th trap, Chaska over on the other side of the map can't lay his own traps? This is an arbitrary game mechanic taking over from a thematic character-based and model-based mechanic. Jaecar couldn't place another Pitfall Trap before because he only had one. Chaska couldn't place a 4th Big Game trap before because he only had 3. Before, if I wanted to focus on traps, I could take 3 Hunters and reach 7 traps. Now, I can take 1 Hunter and reach 5 traps. Or 2 or 3 Hunters and still only reach 5 traps, because for some reason they must share a pool. I understand game design and game balance quite well, and there are a dozen ways the number of traps (or simply the rules that determine their placement and implact on the field) could be balanced without imposing an arbitrary team limit. Before, we were limited to 1, 3, 4, 6, or 7 traps, depending on our team roster. It was a roster-building, thematic choice. Now it's an arbitrary limit of 5 generic traps, regardless. 4. Snare overload. Snare is great, but the Hunters already had a bunch of ways to throw Snare on somebody. Since Snare doesn't stack, once an opponent is Snared they're only copping a measly 1 DMG to set off each subsequent generic trap. More Snare may be powerful, but powerful doesn't mean it's more fun or interesting, and it feels a tiny bit like a one-trick pony now. I don't think there's a problem because traps are weaker now, or because Snare is a bad thing, but because they're generic and boringly identical. And where before different opposing players might be more or less concerned about avoiding different traps (not to mention Jaecar's trap holding a larger physical presence on the field), now a trap is a trap is a trap, and once you're snared, a trap is a generic 1 DMG to soak or go around. 5. The 'streamlined' and 'simplified' generic trap is more newbie-friendly. In a game with weird terminology, weird symbols in Playbooks, hyper-specific phrases, tokens and counters all over the place, numerous resources, three different types of plays, and a bunch of subtly tweaked and worded (and often conditional) traits and plays that make each guild a whole different beast from the others, I don't think a grand total of 3 types of traps being boiled down to 1 generic trap type is going to help new players much. If they can handle all over the information overload of Guild Ball, but can't work out that 40mm pitfall-style trap placed by Jaecar is his Pitfall Trap, and 30mm bear-trap-style trap placed by Chaska is his Big Game Trap, something's wrong. If "Which trap is that, again?" and a quick look at the relevant charcter card is too hard for such a player to deal with, making traps generic isn't going to help them much. I mean, really, let's be honest about that. Dumbed down, simple, and generic is not what Guild Ball is about, so simplifying/streamlining/dumbing down one element of one guild is going to have next to no impact on the steepness of the game's learning curve. In summary, I know the sky is not falling. It's not the end of the world for the Hunters' Guild. But it's also not as simple as, 'But they're better now, so it's sunshine and lollipops,' either. What they've gained: 1. Simplified trap rules. 2. More snare and (arguably) an overall improvement to the effectiveness of traps. What they've lost: 1. The original trap (and for many of us our only trap figure) is now obsolete. 2. Jaecar's ability to cause Bleed (and for a player without Seenah, the only source of Bleed). 3. The uniqueness of each character's individual traps (and therefore part of those characters' uniqueness). 4. Different trap area-denial potential for different team compositions (now 0 traps or 5 traps, Vs 1, 3,4, 6, or 7 before) 5. Options for choice and optimisation of when and how to prioritise Snare, Bleed, and DMG with traps Vs with character Traits/Plays. By all means, please disagree with me. Please try to persuade me and convince me I'm wrong. But please don't trivialise the negative impact the changes have had (for some of us) on the Hunters' Guild with dismissive 'solutions' that don't address the real issue, or tell us how they're more powerful now (if being more powerful was the only issue, there would be no cause for complaint). I'd also like to make it abundantly clear that I've been on both sides of these kinds of debates over the years. I've been a staunch advocate and defender of overhauls, streamlining, etc in some games, but I've also been vehemently against it for other games. Each and every time it's the spirit and essence of the game, what's fun, and what's balanced that has informed by viewpoints. So I'm not one of those grumps who resists change. I just resist change away from what makes something good in the first place. Personally I would prefer to keep traps as they were, but do away with the place-trap-then-push-them-into-it-in-the-same-activation option, to focus and balance around area denial and team plays. I'm sure many veterans would hate that idea, as it would remove one of their favourite Jaecar plays. But such a change would, I think, be in the spirit of what the Hunters' Guild traps should be all about. Rant over. Bring on the agreement, disagreement, or crickets....
×