Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
foolwiththefez

Wild Season 4 Speculation

Recommended Posts

Just now, ForestRambo said:

I really don’t think remembering 1-2 models your opponent have counter charge or 1-2 have UM is too mentally taxing...

It's not about the tax more the upswing/downswing of forgetting (we are all human). I'm not saying they need to change but I also don't see what they bring other than gotchas of a sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man you guys are talking about killing some of my favourite Stuff. If Zarola didn't have UM I would never take her she is the best ball carrier in the Hunters because if it. If CP's were all OPT Theron, Egret and many other players would need extensive changes and the playstyle of the whole team would be impacted.

Definitely against the dice role change thingy, it just sounds pants. Especially given that I tend to be the guy that will roll 5 x 5s with a Tac 6 model against a DEF 5 player and my mate has a whole symptom named after him called "mikedice" which he doesn't use as an excuse for not winning over yonder in the states the other week.

For me, I would just like to see a few changes/general rebalancing that will have me using underutilised players such as Tenderiser, vOx, Egret, Ulfr, vHearne etc. I do not want to see a whole team undergo a mass rebalance ala engineers. Just one or two changes here or there to make it harder to auto include certain players. Also I want S1 Minx to stop being union and be a Hunter so I can choose either or (joking not joking).

Share this post


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

It's not about the tax more the upswing/downswing of forgetting (we are all human). I'm not saying they need to change but I also don't see what they bring other than gotchas of a sort.

They bring protection to models who otherwise lack it in Armor or health pool. Having that ability in your draft to be protected from certain players on your other team is a thing. If I play Hunters and they draft no 2” It should be a punished as they know I bring UM models. 

It’s like saying Stealth in Warmachine is a gotcha. It’s a open knowledge game and I tell my opponents before the game starts that X model has it. It’s a defensive tool that I feel should be in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Do you think it honestly makes the game more fun or just more interesting. I'm not sure I like anything that 'punishes' their opponent - if anything you are funneling your opponent into having to take certain models. That seems bad rather than good surely - don't we want to see a diverse selection played rather than having to take 2" models? My issue is that for the longest time there are mechanics in the game that make 2" models >> 1" models - and I don't think that one simple attribute should dictate so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think UM makes for good decisions in drafting process and is a good defensive tool, yes :) I don’t think UM makes the game any more un-fun or less interesting.

When playing Hunters I often only run 2” melee. It’s just thing you have to correctly play around with things like Pass’n go, Playbook dodge results or out of activation movement.

In the same vein should we remove Counter-Charge & Gluttonous mass because it feels bad when the opponent forgets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ForestRambo said:

I think UM makes for good decisions in drafting process and is a good defensive tool, yes :) I don’t think UM makes the game any more un-fun or less interesting.

When playing Hunters I often only run 2” melee. It’s just thing you have to correctly play around with things like Pass’n go, Playbook dodge results or out of activation movement.

In the same vein should we remove Counter-Charge & Gluttonous mass because it feels bad when the opponent forgets? 

I think I'm not communicating my thoughts. I don't say we remove things that are gotchas, we change them to not being gotchas. But more importantly you are HAVING to take 2" to deal with these rules that don't add anything except say 'Did you bring 2"? Well now you're screwed buddy!'. I just don't think that helps the diversification of models. You as a player are being forced to take models 'just because'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, every team has at least one 2” model that is taken, regardless of UM. I will always take oHearne / or Seenah just because having one 2” to ignore CA is solid. As a side effect I also have a solid answer to UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ForestRambo said:

Not at all, every team has at least one 2” model that is taken, regardless of UM. I will always take oHearne / or Seenah just because having one 2” to ignore CA is solid. As a side effect I also have a solid answer to UM.

You've just agreed with me! My thrust of argument was that overall in the game, 2" is so much better than 1" it's silly and UM is just a part of that. I'd like to see S4 introduce mechanics to make 2" a bit better but not so much better than now. The primary one I think is that every model can make a 1" dodge directly towards any attacking model after they attack. So you can't counter attack in the first attack but subsequent attacks can be countered. That would be a start. 2" non-engagement is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ForestRambo said:

I really don’t think remembering 1-2 models your opponent have counter charge or 1-2 have UM is too mentally taxing...

Wait til you've got teenage 3 kids and hit 40 and you may change your opinion ;-)

I'm not saying its "on SFG" I'm saying I accept that these flaws are mine, but would prefer it if the game didn't allow people to exploit them, because it's less fun for me when they do. I also find it not fun when someone triggers one of these effects on my team as it feels like I've cheated them out of whatever enjoyable experience they might have had from that activation had I not just ruled it null-and-void (which is why I always try and inform my opponent before they make a move as to when something like this is likely to happen).

I much prefer strategy to be they key to winning, whether that's over randomness of spiky dice or over an ability to remember stuff, but essentially I think it comes down to fun, and being gotcha'd is just never fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re getting on to much bigger issues then UM. I don’t think 2” / 1” reach is a issue, so I won’t carry on debating that as it just ends in a circle debate that keeps going round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictions for Season 4:

- Game Plans in the core book. Possibly minor change to gameplan functionality, but nothing larger. If anything, buff the +1 cards and Sell It.

- Kicking team starts with 1 momentum, same as on any other turn.

- Playbook dodges / pushes / damage don't combine any more - this rule isn't really needed for anything

- Merge teamwork passing dodges into a single action to improve readability

I feel like some rules could also be merged together, since there's a lot of different effects for different models which all do basically the same thing.

Share this post


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

- Kicking team starts with 1 momentum, same as on any other turn.

I don't think this would be a good idea... it's already not that hard to get a first activation goal as the kicking team (guild dependant), and auto-starting with the necessary momentum would make it even easier. 

Share this post


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

- Playbook dodges / pushes / damage don't combine any more - this rule isn't really needed for anything

That's not true. Pushes have to be in a single direction so if they didn't combine you'd be able to push a model in multiple directions with two push results. It also matters for traits like stoic which ignores the first push, if pushes weren't combined a stoic model could still be pushed by a single attack that wraps. If damage didn't combine it would change it's interaction with traits like reanimate as the first damage packet could trigger reanimate and the second could potentially take the model out in a single attack. Any effect that's triggered when a model takes damage would also be affected by this, Chisel's sadism could be triggered twice by a single attack for example.

The only one where I can't think of any ramifications for changing it so the results don't combine is dodges. But combining them makes sense to keep them consistent with the other two.

Either way I don't think you can say the rule isn't needed for anything. Taking it out would change a lot of game interactions and not in a good way I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rejusu said:

That's not true. Pushes have to be in a single direction so if they didn't combine you'd be able to push a model in multiple directions with two push results. It also matters for traits like stoic which ignores the first push, if pushes weren't combined a stoic model could still be pushed by a single attack that wraps. If damage didn't combine it would change it's interaction with traits like reanimate as the first damage packet could trigger reanimate and the second could potentially take the model out in a single attack. Any effect that's triggered when a model takes damage would also be affected by this, Chisel's sadism could be triggered twice by a single attack for example.

The only one where I can't think of any ramifications for changing it so the results don't combine is dodges. But combining them makes sense to keep them consistent with the other two.

Either way I don't think you can say the rule isn't needed for anything. Taking it out would change a lot of game interactions and not in a good way I think.

 

I'm not saying it would have no effect, I'm saying that it would have an effect very rarely, and whenever it does I don't think the fact that results combine is intuitive or useful. Stoic etc are mainly useful for Pushing plays and counterattack resistance anyway. Reanimate wouldn't be affected because the taken-out check happens after the attack is fully resolved either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

I'm not saying it would have no effect, I'm saying that it would have an effect very rarely, and whenever it does I don't think the fact that results combine is intuitive or useful. Stoic etc are mainly useful for Pushing plays and counterattack resistance anyway. Reanimate wouldn't be affected because the taken-out check happens after the attack is fully resolved either way.

Eh adding like for like never struck me as unintuitive but to each their own. It's less complex than dealing with individual damage packets as you have to in other games. I don't see the benefit in taking it out and it feels like doing so would be an unnecessary change that would have unintended side effects. You're right about reanimate but it still affects all the other interactions I described.

To me a rule that's not needed is one that's almost never used, like the old icy sponge rules.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×