Jump to content
THE_DOJO_MIKE

Game Plan deck discussion

Recommended Posts

So after playing several games with the new and awesome game plan decks, our gaming group had several questions. (Keep in mind we are tournament driven group that enjoys competitive play). 

1- The initiative phase with plot cards was very quick, will there be any clock management added to the phase because one opponent could take longer to choose than another?

2- When there are effects during the initiative phase, are those on the clock (believe "seize the initiative" is the only one)?

Most of the new questions have to do with clock and other minor things but just curious what other people thought about it. The games so far have been amazing and I love the extra strategy required for this new way of playing. Let me know what you think and how you think the OPD will come out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choosing a game plan can be a complex decision based on a lot of incomplete information.  IMO it should be on the clock.  Possible solutions include the player who had initiative last turn deciding on their clock then passing it to their opponent then revealing simultaneously or starting off the clock and whoever decides first placing their card face down and passing it to their opponent.  I suspect it will remain off the clock but if it does there's nothing to stop a player taking five minutes to plan out their entire turn while picking a game plan card and it's only a matter of time until someone does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had that issue the other night. One player who was up on momentum had picked their card fairly quickly while the other sat back and thought for a few minutes and finally decided. This could be an interesting point of sportsmanship, which is why I was hoping it would be addressed in the OPD.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel tha you should be on the clock as well, but there is no way to have both clocks running at the same time. Unless the person with the most MOM must pick first.

i think the cards in general are a cool idea, that being said I feel like, like the GIC, it was rushed out the door. The cards themselves are adding a luck factor into the already high luck factor of a Dice game. You can just lose a game because you drew bad cards and the other guy had good cards. (Good being +4>) 

after several games I have found the text is massively less important on 90% of the cards than the ability to either go first or second. You can no longer plan for the future beyond the turn that youre in with any reasonable hope. Again, if your holding all >3 cards, and you REALLY need to go first (depending on match ups, board state, and a million other things) you either just flat out can’t, or you never DEF stance, counter attack or heal, in hopes to make the MOM at least close.

my solution, change the amounts from a max of 7, to a range of 1-3. Everything can stay exactly the same. This is not only taking away MOST of the luck factor (not all) and still giving you a chance to swing the initiative based on how you play the turn.

guild ball is a dice game, luck is always a factor, but way add more and more factors to winning and losing base on things that are out of your controll. Might as well choose captains then Play ship captain crew, and see who wins. Would save a few hours and would more or less the same out come. Maybe depending on your world ranking you could get another roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Poetica said:

Again, if your holding all >3 cards, and you REALLY need to go first (depending on match ups, board state, and a million other things) you either just flat out can’t, or you never DEF stance, counter attack or heal, in hopes to make the MOM at least close.

Did you try to count the chance for being dealt only >3 cards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I can think of a fair way to time the card picking.. the second player to choose will always be at a big advantage. 

Looking forward to trying these out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CurlyPaul said:

I'm not sure if I can think of a fair way to time the card picking.. the second player to choose will always be at a big advantage.

There is no second player to pick. 

 

From the blogpost post about the cards: 

At the start of the second turn, in the Initiative Phase, instead of rolling a die to determine the initiative, both players secretly select a Game Plan from their hand. Both coaches then reveal their selected card at the same time and compare the initiative values of their selected Game Plan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that generally the higher the +MP the more likely it gets played. There is no ability on any of those cards that beats going first. Also though the abilities make more tactical sense at various times in a game, it is rare that the ability you want at that time also coincides with the +MP you need at that time, and so they become largely secondary to that number in the corner.

I had a game last night where I was dealt a 2,4,5,6,6,7,7. Not only did I know I could probably go first each turn, it also meant I could freely spent momentum knowing my opponent had nothing better than a +5. Even if you ignore the abilities on the card, that pool of cards said to me "you have at least 2 free momentum to spend each turn" knowing I didn't need save it to hedge on the played cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the GP deck a couple of times, and feel that it's easier to use, especially for newer players. The +-1 on the influence adds a whole new dynamic to the turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the clock goes, I'd have the clock remain paused until one player has picked a gameplan. Then the other player's clock starts until they also pick a plan. That way you don't have silliness with both clocks running at once. If one player takes 1 minute and the other takes 5, they lose 4 minutes of clock time which seems fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOT TAKE: They are sort of fun - but they are also really bad and I'm not sure about the design at all.

1. Open Information vs Hidden Information: Before you and your opponent new the score - you could see who had what MOM and new the probabilities of winning the roll off - now it's a crap shoot. Does he have a 7+ card etc - it's all hidden making in turn decisions about initiative weak.

2. Weight of Momentum: Before having +2 MOM was good but not great - you still could easily lose the roll-off going first. Now having even +1 MOM gives you ALL the power - if you have +1 MOM, you can play a 7+ and just win it or even a 6+ and roll it off if your opponent tries a 7+. If you have 3+ MOM, you can play anything you want (7+,6+,5+ auto win, 4+ roll off). That's a massive shift in weight of momentum - and it means that if you have even a tiny bit more momentum than your opponent, you are in charge. 

These two things make playing for momentum to try to win initiative now pointless unless you know you can get more than your opponent. And its equally frustrating to watch a last activation just gobble up momentum like Pac-Man and know that player is now going first despite your entire turn of setup.

3. The only thing that matters is the INIT value (blue circle). The text is largely pointless because the primary concern is going to be going first. Going first in GB wins games - that shot on goal, that captain take out, that casket time etc - priority is super important. The INF value is also pointless - who cares about +/-1 INF. If you go first you stomp on someone and take out 4x that amount! This is a shame and poor design I think - the high INIT cards should have come with much more penalty to make you think about playing them - currently, why would you not play the highest you have and auto win initiative? No text effect (bar maybe Shove the Boot In) is better than initiative. 

4. Some of the cards are crap. Dig Deep, OffSide Trap are pointless cards. These are both low INIT cards - why on earth do they have such awful abilities (and the +1 INF is not good as discussed above). They are just bad - auto drops. If you get both...oh well, your cards are chosen for you.

5. Inequality of cards. Um,  Seize the Initiative is ridiculously good and Lone Striker is only good for +7?? STI auto wins the roll for you, has no INF penalty (?!?) and the card text is insanely good - sure your opponent can move, who cares? I get to push Ox 4" you say and go first? Well your team is in a world of trouble. Bonkers. Why this card isn't -1 INF I have no idea.

6. It hasn't eliminated random chance rolls - it just shifted it to BEFORE THE GAME starts. What I mean is a bad draw of cards (and yes 1,1,2,2,3,33 is never going to happen - getting 6+,4+,3+,3+,3+,2+,1+ is possible i.e. one high card that isn't a 7+) is very possible - and that could mean you never get to even contest INIT.

7. Game Theory says that while it looks like both players have a decision - they actually don't. Remember the thing I said about +1 MOM meaning you basically control the INIT race, well that means your opponent doesn't have much choice at all. Consider this case. My opponent has +1 MOM. I have a 7+ card in hand. Do I play it? Consider the outcomes - 1. My opponent plays a 7+ and my card is wasted, 2. My opponent plays a 6+ and we roll for it and I lose, 3. I win the roll off 4. My opponent plays a 5 or lower card - I win INIT. Would you play it? Now consider this - my opponent has +2 MOM, he can win on 7+,6+ and roll off on 5+, would you play it? Now consider 3+...

8. Clock problems - this needs to be worked out. You can't have people taking infinite time to decide their card.

Game theory indicates that the best outcome is to HOLD the 7+ until you have +1 MOM yourself and then play it. So actually there is no choice in the card playing at all - the player with most momentum will probably win it.

So what this means is that the player losing INIT needs to play their LOWEST card with the BEST text (and maybe INF). That is the only logical choice in the absence of information.

So what do I think went wrong with these cards.

Firstly and I said this about Plot Cards - DRAFT not RANDOM DEAL. Draft means that you can ensure you pick the cards to either counter your opponent or at least ensure you don't get left behind in the INIT race.

INIT-based trigger - rather than the card just doing 3 things (INIT, TEXT, INF) the card should have a trigger so that INF say triggers off winning initiative. Imagine if say Seize the Initiative worked like this: +7 INIT. +4" Dodge thing. IF YOU WON INITIATIVE, -3 INF this turn. Now you'd be much more like...woah, do I REALLY want to go first this turn? You could also put the trigger into the TEXT. E.g. If you won initiative this turn, your opponent picks one of your models - make a 4" dodge with it. Either way, you are making going first cards more of a choice, where as now they are auto plays.

Another system that could be used is the 2-pack concept. Both players have a pack of GamePlay Cards - THEY PICK FROM THEIR PACK EACH TURN. You could refine this to say before the match, coach must pick 5 cards from the deck. Those are his GP deck. This give the player the agency again - he can choose 7,7,6,6,5 or he can choose for the effects that suit his team. Frankly choosing before the game makes much more sense than a random deal. What sort of coach are you?? Wenger doesn't roll a die before making a coaching decision.

The TEXT abilities need to be stronger on the lower INIT cards. Those 2 cards need reworking, and the rest need bulking up - if I am forfeiting INIT I should get a perk of a good card TEXT. Currently, this isn't that great (outside of Kick 'Em, Midfield General and Keep the Ball Moving). 

INF values need reworking - high cards need worse penalties, low cards better bonuses. +/-1 is just annoying book work that doesn't impact the turn.

I think given the play testing of GICs, I really wish we'd been exposed to these before release. Now we're stuck with 2 dead cards and a system that rewards high momentum teams and actually not much choice when playing the card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

HOT TAKE: They are sort of fun - but they are also really bad and I'm not sure about the design at all.

1. Open Information vs Hidden Information: Before you and your opponent new the score - you could see who had what MOM and new the probabilities of winning the roll off - now it's a crap shoot. Does he have a 7+ card etc - it's all hidden making in turn decisions about initiative weak.

2. Weight of Momentum: Before having +2 MOM was good but not great - you still could easily lose the roll-off going first. Now having even +1 MOM gives you ALL the power - if you have +1 MOM, you can play a 7+ and just win it or even a 6+ and roll it off if your opponent tries a 7+. If you have 3+ MOM, you can play anything you want (7+,6+,5+ auto win, 4+ roll off). That's a massive shift in weight of momentum - and it means that if you have even a tiny bit more momentum than your opponent, you are in charge. 

These two things make playing for momentum to try to win initiative now pointless unless you know you can get more than your opponent. And its equally frustrating to watch a last activation just gobble up momentum like Pac-Man and know that player is now going first despite your entire turn of setup.

3. The only thing that matters is the INIT value (blue circle). The text is largely pointless because the primary concern is going to be going first. Going first in GB wins games - that shot on goal, that captain take out, that casket time etc - priority is super important. The INF value is also pointless - who cares about +/-1 INF. If you go first you stomp on someone and take out 4x that amount! This is a shame and poor design I think - the high INIT cards should have come with much more penalty to make you think about playing them - currently, why would you not play the highest you have and auto win initiative? No text effect (bar maybe Shove the Boot In) is better than initiative. 

4. Some of the cards are crap. Dig Deep, OffSide Trap are pointless cards. These are both low INIT cards - why on earth do they have such awful abilities (and the +1 INF is not good as discussed above). They are just bad - auto drops. If you get both...oh well, your cards are chosen for you.

5. Inequality of cards. Um,  Seize the Initiative is ridiculously good and Lone Striker is only good for +7?? STI auto wins the roll for you, has no INF penalty (?!?) and the card text is insanely good - sure your opponent can move, who cares? I get to push Ox 4" you say and go first? Well your team is in a world of trouble. Bonkers. Why this card isn't -1 INF I have no idea.

6. It hasn't eliminated random chance rolls - it just shifted it to BEFORE THE GAME starts. What I mean is a bad draw of cards (and yes 1,1,2,2,3,33 is never going to happen - getting 6+,4+,3+,3+,3+,2+,1+ is possible i.e. one high card that isn't a 7+) is very possible - and that could mean you never get to even contest INIT.

7. Game Theory says that while it looks like both players have a decision - they actually don't. Remember the thing I said about +1 MOM meaning you basically control the INIT race, well that means your opponent doesn't have much choice at all. Consider this case. My opponent has +1 MOM. I have a 7+ card in hand. Do I play it? Consider the outcomes - 1. My opponent plays a 7+ and my card is wasted, 2. My opponent plays a 6+ and we roll for it and I lose, 3. I win the roll off 4. My opponent plays a 5 or lower card - I win INIT. Would you play it? Now consider this - my opponent has +2 MOM, he can win on 7+,6+ and roll off on 5+, would you play it? Now consider 3+...

8. Clock problems - this needs to be worked out. You can't have people taking infinite time to decide their card.

Game theory indicates that the best outcome is to HOLD the 7+ until you have +1 MOM yourself and then play it. So actually there is no choice in the card playing at all - the player with most momentum will probably win it.

So what this means is that the player losing INIT needs to play their LOWEST card with the BEST text (and maybe INF). That is the only logical choice in the absence of information.

So what do I think went wrong with these cards.

Firstly and I said this about Plot Cards - DRAFT not RANDOM DEAL. Draft means that you can ensure you pick the cards to either counter your opponent or at least ensure you don't get left behind in the INIT race.

INIT-based trigger - rather than the card just doing 3 things (INIT, TEXT, INF) the card should have a trigger so that INF say triggers off winning initiative. Imagine if say Seize the Initiative worked like this: +7 INIT. +4" Dodge thing. IF YOU WON INITIATIVE, -3 INF this turn. Now you'd be much more like...woah, do I REALLY want to go first this turn? You could also put the trigger into the TEXT. E.g. If you won initiative this turn, your opponent picks one of your models - make a 4" dodge with it. Either way, you are making going first cards more of a choice, where as now they are auto plays.

Another system that could be used is the 2-pack concept. Both players have a pack of GamePlay Cards - THEY PICK FROM THEIR PACK EACH TURN. You could refine this to say before the match, coach must pick 5 cards from the deck. Those are his GP deck. This give the player the agency again - he can choose 7,7,6,6,5 or he can choose for the effects that suit his team. Frankly choosing before the game makes much more sense than a random deal. What sort of coach are you?? Wenger doesn't roll a die before making a coaching decision.

The TEXT abilities need to be stronger on the lower INIT cards. Those 2 cards need reworking, and the rest need bulking up - if I am forfeiting INIT I should get a perk of a good card TEXT. Currently, this isn't that great (outside of Kick 'Em, Midfield General and Keep the Ball Moving). 

INF values need reworking - high cards need worse penalties, low cards better bonuses. +/-1 is just annoying book work that doesn't impact the turn.

I think given the play testing of GICs, I really wish we'd been exposed to these before release. Now we're stuck with 2 dead cards and a system that rewards high momentum teams and actually not much choice when playing the card.

Wow I'm impressed.

1. "does he have a 7+ card?" is functionally the same as "is he going to roll a 6?".

2. If you always go for the autowin you're playing cards with poor effects or downsides while the opponent gets to take anything they want. This is a major downside.

3. The trick is that if you're going to lose init anyway, you get a nice benefit out of it now where before you got stone cold nothing. This is definitely not a downgrade. There's also the mindgame - if you're 2 up, your opponent is likely gonna pick a +2 or something this turn, so you can afford to do the same, but then they might take the 7 on the offchance.. etc. It adds strategy.

4. Dig Deep is really good if you are behind on initiative. Being behind on initiative is not uncommon. If your opponent has a +3 to their roll, what would you prefer - a 1 in 12 chance of going first, or +1 influence and +~2 momentum? Because I know which of the two options I would pick.

5. Sure. Then if your opponent has a high number (or just more momentum) suddenly they get the benefit instead of you. Remember that you have to play all five cards. If it gets to turn four and you're in a situation where giving your opponent a free 4" dodge is a problem, tough, you're playing that card anyway.

6. And there are games in the previous ruleset where you never got to contest initiative, too. The difference si that this way round, you at least get to choose when you get your highest number on the turn where it's most important to you. And when you lose initiative, you still get a solid benefit out of it rather than just being screwed.

7. I don't get how having all of these decisions and possibilities is a bad thing. This looks like an upside to me?

8. Like I said earlier, just put player B on the clock from the point player A has chosen their card.

----

I feel like you are overvaluing the 'but I might win!' factor of the old die roll. The old momentum odds were:

+4: 1 in 34

+3: 1 in 11

+2: 1 in 5 (ish, it's 3 in 16)

+1: 1 in 3 (ish, it's 10 in 31)

The idea that in the old system there was a chance of winning even if you were some momentum down is true, but it was also never something you could plan around. You would never make a play assuming you were going to win initiative, without more momentum, unless it was your only chance of winning the game.

Now, if you're down momentum, you can still try and play your 7 and hope for the best if you need to. That is an additional option you never had before, or rather it had way too low odds for you to ever attempt it.

Alternatively you can get an actual benefit when you end up going second.

Choosing which of the above you want (or somewhere in between, if you think your opponent is going to play a +2 for the more powerful benefit) is an additional strategic decision, where previously you just had to roll the dice and hope for the best.

 

It's also way less grim when you lose initiative you 'should' have won. Previously if you had +4 initiative and you lost that 1 in 34 roll, you just got wrecked. You got no benefit whatsoever. Now, you have a choice.

Take a calculated risk and play that +2 or +3 for a strong benefit

Play it safe and drop your +4 or higher

If you lost initiative when you played a +2, you took a risk and got punished for it - but that is fine if you did so deliberately. If you lose initiative you can think 'well, at least I turned my momentum advantage into a powerful card and my opponent is down inf / doesn't get much benefit' or 'I made the wrong decision'. That is way better than the old 'Oh, I'm screwed, and there are no decisions I could have made that would have been correct'. That just sucks because the advantage you built last turn doesn't reward you in the slightest, and it also sucks for the person who won initiative because you aren't winning it off your own correct decisions, you're winning entirely through luck rather than strategy. That's an awful point of the game for both players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dig Deep gives you +1INF and maybe a +1 MOM if they decide to score - how is that good (yes it's better than nothing but for an INIT 2 card I'd expect more)? There is no universe in which you pick/play Dig Deep over any other card surely - every other card has a better TEXT effect and often a higher INIT (look at Midfield General for example). Only Offside Trap is worse.

I think you are missing my point. 'Does he have a 7+ card' is not the same as rolling a 6 at all - because you KNOW he could have better cards than you (especially if you can see your cards and know they are rubbish) whereas the dice roll isn't know until both players roll.

1. I'm not sure your opponent cares he had to play a high INIT card because the low INIT cards AREN'T BETTER THAN GOING FIRST. So the idea you 'forced' him to play a high card is false. It's also negative for you - you played a high card knowing you cannot win if he plays an appropriate numbered card. Your agency in winning the roll is zero. The person who has highest momentum can CHOOSE to lose the roll of course - but it is their choice to lose, not your choice to win. That's false agency.

2. Is it better than the previous dice roll? No because previously your opponent was in the whims of fate - that could provide a sudden turn around (more momentum could, but not always imply he was 'winning' the previous turn) - I've come back into games when I rolled a 6 and they rolled 1. That is now impossible. If your opponent has +3 MOM or higher YOU WILL NOT GET A CHOICE. This means a good opponent can capitalise on tempo and keep kicking you when you are already down with no fear. That is not better than a random roll. Sure if you were the guy with +4 MOM and you lost the roll it was infuriating - but it kept the game always alive. Now you can control the tempo and maintain it. There are no fight backs on initiative.

3. My point is there isn't the decision tree you think you have - if you are going to lose INIT (and almost every player is going to try to win it even if they choose 2nd because they can control the game tempo) then you just pick the best remaining card - usually the lower ones. That is a sort of choice I guess but not really.

4. I wonder how many games go to 5 turns. Yes after 4 turns you might now have an advantage - but you sacrificed so much to get here is the game close?

 

I do agree with your clock idea. But I think people are overlooking what pre-selected dice rolls means. Say for example I told you before the game your first 5 initiative dice rolls were 5,3,3,2,1 and your opponent was 6,5,3,3,1 (and you could pick any dice) - what do you think would have happened under the old system.

Currently the only agency is getting +1 MOM on your opponent - if you come up short then the effort is wasted. That is different to the old system where +1 MOM was nowhere near certain.

I'm not saying they aren't fun - but I think people will quickly start to see that they can make a one-sided game go south quickly and I wonder how they will appeal competitively. Although thank goodness the design aberration of Knee Slider is gone - that is good. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dig Deep gives 2 MOM. If you're behind on momentum against a team that is likely to want to score goals (which a lot of them are) it's probably one of the best 5 cards in the deck to have in your hand.

I don't think you get my point about the die roll. The cards your opponent gets are random, and they can't play the same one every turn. There is a chance your opponent was dealt the 7, and then they have to decide to play it, where before there was a chance they would roll a 6, and that was it. I'd rather have an event be 40% luck and 60% strategy than 100% luck, thanks all the same.

The low initiative cards aren't better than going first because having more momentum should be useful. Obviously going first is good. Playing a +4 card when you are up two momentum is effectively the same as choosing to spend two momentum to heal on the last activation when you are up 5 momentum. You get a benefit, and your odds of winning initiative go from 100% to 80%. You're taking a calculated risk. Having the option of doing this is a good thing. Losing the roll when you had +4 mom was an awful part of the game since neither player could control it, the person who lost got screwed, and the person who won didn't earn it. I don't understand how turning the 'whims of fate' into a strategic choice is a downside??

If your opponent had +3 mom or higher you didn't get a choice in the old system either, you were 90% likely to lose the roll. In the new system you get compensation for when this happens. If anything it makes snowballing a lead harder, because if you want to turn your momentum lead into more advantages your opponent gets additional upsides (unless they picked a load of the bad cards in the hope of using them to win initiative, that is...)

Choosing not to contest initiative and instead go for the best card seems like a very important decision. If you have a hand of 23457 and your opponent is at +1, pretty much every card could be a legitimate choice depending on game state. 7 if you need to go first this turn to win immediately (but you could use it to guarantee next turn instead posibbly..), 2-3 if you want the benefit and expect your opponent to need to go first, 4-5 if the benefit is useful and you want the chance of sneaking a first if you think your opponent wants one of the low-card benefits, or wants to save their high numbers for the final / crucial turns.

Being up momentum puts you at an advantage, surprise surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you haven't eliminated the luck!! It's just a draw at the start rather than a roll during! It's still luck!

Also I think my point is that now having more momentum means you can have your cake and eat it! If I'm at +3 MOM, I can play any card and effect down to +5 and still go first. If I have +4 I can have +4 cards and still win - and that's most of the cards! I'm saying the new system is Win More for a player with more momentum. They get to go first uncontested and get a great effect too. To counter this the benefit you get should be better than the benefit they get+going first - but it isn't. Sure you get 'something'. I'm not sure that the certainty of going first isn't worth 1000x more.

I think I get what you are saying - yes it is now a programmatic/strategic choice. Yes if you lose INIT you get a bonus - but so does your opponent! And if having more momentum means you get to keep tempo, high momentum teams will be unfairly rewarded.

Knowing you are going to lose over maybe losing is not an improvement to me - just because I know I will lose doesn't mean I can alter board state to benefit. And that point you said about 'should I spend momentum or not' - that was a CHOICE, you were making a strategic move (heal 4 now or maybe win initiative) - what I'm saying now is that there is no such choice - you heal 4 - you have ALREADY LOST the roll off. So that's less choice.

Here's an example I don't like:

Ox gets Seize the Initiative. He moves Ox 4" forward, you move something away (or try to engage Ox maybe - it doesn't matter), Ox player knows he's going first, legendaries and obliterates an important model in your team. You couldn't stop it, none of your cards will help and you just lost INF and tempo. Then the rest of the Butchers pile in. 

I don't like knowing that Butchers players can guarantee going first and even me getting to within 1 MOM makes NO DIFFERENCE. Before I could make a fight of it, make that Ox move an overextension and super risky - now the Butcher player can rest assured he not only get a 4" dodge (why isn't this card Squaddie only???) he also gets to go first. With no INF penalty either. Not seeing that as a downside for him.

The cards are predeterministic - get good cards, you are in a much stronger position. That's bad. Before the 'whims of fate' kept people honest. And I don't like ANYTHING that is decided before I put models on the pitch. The old Plot Cards where your opponent got Knee Slider and Vengeance was so frustrating - this is worse extension of that.

You are right about DigDeep being 2 MOM - if they score. Otherwise...it's not exactly great. Highly situational, and I think every other card is better other than Offside Trap (which is silly - it doesn't even say enemy models for goodness sake).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't just draw a random card. There is strategy in playing your cards at the correct time. You can use strategy to mitigate a poor draw, to save an important high number for when necessary, or to use a powerful effect at the right time. There is still chance, yes, but now you can mitigate the effect of poor luck by making correct decisions, which previously wasn't possible.

If you are up 4 momentum, you get to play a +4 card and still go first. Your opponent gets to play a +2 card, let's say. You get an effect (say, rated 3/10 in power) and they get a better effect (say, 6/10). I don't understand how going first + 3/10 vs second + 6/10 is more advantageous than the old system of going first + nothing vs. second + nothing. You've overvaluing the 3% odds of a roll upset by a lot. It's something that should pretty much never be considered unless it's someone's only out.

I was talking about the team who was ahead spending momentum. Heal 4 and probably win vs don't heal and definitely win, and with the GPCs get benefit and probably win vs. suffer downside but definitely win.

With regards to your Ox scenario:

1. Ox could do with some benefits

2. You get a dodge. Move the model that's best at dealing with Ox 4" backwards to give him only one target, and don't put influence on the target.

3. If you are 'losing inf' when Ox oneshots your model, you screwed up / allocated influence poorly. Being punished for doing so is just fine.

4. Turns out Unpredictable Movement and good counterattacks are useful things to have. Literally every team has some form of defensive tech they can use to make sure Ox isn't just going to be oneshotting them. If dodge to outside of 10" of him (still not a long threat range), you force him to charge, then KD to avoid the counter attack, so unless you are a super flimsy player he still isn't killing you immediately. If you played the Poised card you can also CA + Def Stance. If you put two players within 10" (so he can jog up to someone after the dodge) and neither of them have any way of staying safe when he walker up to them, you probably screwed up enough that I'm ok with that.

5. The 'whims of fate' didn't keep people honest, it just sometimes rewarded bad play when it shouldn't have.

6. Immediate Response is one of the best plot cards they've made, and Dig Deep is the same thing against any footballing team.

7. This is literally the 'best case scenario' use for this card. I don't think it's particularly better than using a Strongbox charge to say Sic 'Em is OP, or A&G to say that Shove The Boot In is too good, or Pin Vice's legendary turn to say the Showboating card is too good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there are many examples. Another off my head is Shark. His legendary is well known and brutal to some teams. Before you could use the roll-off to mitigate it. Now he can auto-win and get your team and get a benefit.

I think you are applying arbitrary values to the cards but missing the point - the more momentum advantage a team has the better access to going first AND playing those better cards. So the new system does reward Win More. E.g. ad absurdium, if I have +7 Momentum I can play any card I like - any 6/10 card. 

It was just an example - I'm not getting into an argument about countering Ox, I'm saying people can start to play for board position knowing they will go first and I think that will change the game. This is DIFFERENT to the old system and I am saying I think it will lead to pre-determined outcomes. 

This deck tries to replace rolling off with pre-determinism but then includes luck in that pre-determined deck, which is bad. Compare for example the system of combat in Game of Thrones boardgame - players have identical card numbers and then add the army power. By having access to the same numbers, a player can make a real choice. Here you have a random selection to try to employ.

I guess we see things differently. All we can see is how the game grows over the next year. I wonder how we will view playing the GP cards after 3 months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see Butchers are seemingly getting a power boost from this, @EpicChris ;-).  @Gauntlet what are you doing, telling people how to stop Ox? stoppit!!

It may be that I'm a bad player, or because of the sort of team I'm running at the moment, but I see any card with an INF penalty as something I wouldn't want to even contemplate. Sell it to the crowd, Lone Striker, Stick to the Plan and grudge match are pretty much going straight in the discard pile.

There's only Kick 'Em When They're Down I'd consider, but the more I Think about this one the less and less a like it with my team - just doesn't have the KDs. That said, +1 damage for 4 models on your team is worth the -1. If I was playing Brewers I think I'd be happy to play this and lose the initiative.

I can also see myself getting good mileage out of the offside trap (ironic as a butchers player when you think that the Butchers as Matt's team are probably inspired in part by Arsenal), possibly even enough to give up the initiative - it can really wreck with the maths required for the goal and prevent a first activation goal against you, especially if its a 4 INF squaddie with the ball who has to spend INF to do some sort of set up action, then to charge, and shoot - you've then just denied them their goal if you can prevent the wrap (with that convenient 1MP for a defensive stance). It's a bit of a trap that your opponent might not be foolish enough to spring, but you've ceded a low INIT card for denying them the main advantage they were going to get from a first activation goal.

In an early game stand off I can see midfield general adding a lot that might be worth giving up initiative for. If they think they're out of range and were planning to make you go first and keep back you can use the extra movement to surprise them, potentially giving you a surprise target if they still make you go first, or wrecking their plans and forcing them to take the first activation.

Not saying winning the initiative isn't almost always the best thing, but I can see situations where these cards can mess with your opponents plans when they do win it, and thinking about potential traps and ploys like that you can play adds an interesting extra dimension to the play.

Plus also as someone who quite often loses the initiative (I play butchers, I know, I'm supposed to win it all the time. I guess I'm just bad) I think I'd much rather get a nice little benefit despite losing initiative rather than nothing, even if my opponent is also gaining a benefit.

Cheerio,

Ben

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the scoring model the closest model to your goal?? I just think that's rarely going to happen - maybe Butcher might be case for it. But even then push-dodges are a thing! I think timing Offside Trap and getting anything from it will be very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

Why is the scoring model the closest model to your goal?? I just think that's rarely going to happen - maybe Butcher might be case for it. But even then push-dodges are a thing! I think timing Offside Trap and getting anything from it will be very difficult.

Are they going for a tap in? Playing Hunters I’ve had plenty of players be closer to the goal than the players on my team, especially when they try to go base to base with the goal to try and get a second chance just in case they miss. Offside Trap might force them into taking a longer range shot on goal. Useful every turn? No. Potentially game changing? Yes. 

I can see where you are coming from but these cards have barely been out a week. I think we need to give them a chance before we start discussing how a random dice roll every turn is better than this new system. I’ve lost enough +3 and +4 initiative rolls to think this system at least deserves more than a week to cast judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

Actually there are many examples. Another off my head is Shark. His legendary is well known and brutal to some teams. Before you could use the roll-off to mitigate it. Now he can auto-win and get your team and get a benefit.

I think you are applying arbitrary values to the cards but missing the point - the more momentum advantage a team has the better access to going first AND playing those better cards. So the new system does reward Win More. E.g. ad absurdium, if I have +7 Momentum I can play any card I like - any 6/10 card. 

It was just an example - I'm not getting into an argument about countering Ox, I'm saying people can start to play for board position knowing they will go first and I think that will change the game. This is DIFFERENT to the old system and I am saying I think it will lead to pre-determined outcomes. 

This deck tries to replace rolling off with pre-determinism but then includes luck in that pre-determined deck, which is bad. Compare for example the system of combat in Game of Thrones boardgame - players have identical card numbers and then add the army power. By having access to the same numbers, a player can make a real choice. Here you have a random selection to try to employ.

I guess we see things differently. All we can see is how the game grows over the next year. I wonder how we will view playing the GP cards after 3 months...

I think my point is that no matter what your momentum is / how you are auto winning initiative, there is no scenario where you have the ability to go first guaranteed, without also giving your opponent the ability to play the most powerful card they have in terms of text. Sometimes (if you have +7) you can also play your best card while going first, but in that situation you should be getting a major benefit with no real downside, because you just finished a turn 7 momentum up!

Assuming that, on average, the cards in each player's hand are at approximately equal power level, there is no scenario where you are going second and aren't better off than you were under the old rules, unless you took a weak card for its high initiative to gamble on the opponent picking a low initiative card, in which case you took a calculated risk and it didn't pay off, which is also fine.

I don't think the fact you get a random subset of the cards - rather than all of them - is much of an issue. It adds an element of the unknown like the old plot cards, by giving you some info on what the opponent has (i.e. what you know they don't have) but not all of it. It lets you take information into account and make an informed decision, without being guaranteed to be 'correct'. I don't think a fully strategic option is a good way of doing things - it would result in the deck being 'solved' in short order with a standard 5 that you take for your team given the enemy, anyway.

You should already be playing under the assumption that you will be going first if you are a couple of momentum or more up.

 

Basically, I don't really want to win games of Guild Ball because I won an initiative roll when my opponent had +2. If this change eliminates those scenarios, or at least makes it an informed decision rather than the 'whims of the fates', then I am very happy about that. I'd rather win a game where I actually got an advantage through making correct decisions or outthinking my opponent, than because I hit the 30% odds on two initiative rolls in a row and got handed the game on a platter by my dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×