Jump to content
SFG Forums Closing On March 11th 2019 Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Mat

Batrep - Alchemists vs Brewers (Jamie v. Geoff)

Recommended Posts

Awesome match! Very informative to see how the best players think on the field. The "king of auras" joke is real though ; this game is really about space control, with "threat ranges" being a crucial concept. Thanks for all the details and for the strategic insights on those two teams. Brewers hit hard (Katalyst T_T)! And while I get the appeal of Mist over Calculus, Blind did influence the Brewers' plan so much that I am not sure how a second striker might have help. Surely things to ponder in the future. 

 

A couple of questions though (might be better in rules clarifications but it might be faster that way):

 

- Calculus throws Blind on Hoops while being engaged by him. Jamie says that there is no "crowding out" penalty as Calculus is targeting Hooper but I cannot find any reference to that point in the rules. 

- Clone says "you can ignore the next Character Play or Playbook result". Does Clone sustains if you choose not to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit curious as well... I've just read over the rulebook some more. The section that discusses Bonuses and Penalties does specifically call out that when making an attack against a model that you only suffer crowded out for additional enemy models engaging the active model. 

 

What's interesting is that it says Gang Up/Crowd Out only affects Attacks and I can't seem to find a section that discusses the "applicable bonuses and penalties" listed in the sequence for using a Character Play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p50 in the Call Out box under Brisket

 

 

Crowding Out

 

When making a Play action, the active model suffers [-1]
dice-pool for each enemy model it is engaged by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Calculus should have been hindered by Hoops, but since Blind is a 1 INF play, that actually does nothing, as the dice-pool can not go below one. OK. So the play did happen as intended.

 

I'm so confused with "legacy issues", hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting and great game, which taught me much. After this tactical advice and my win by forfeiting against the Fishermen last night (those barrels are really mean and Tapper is even more of a threat) I am now thinking between Brewers and Masons, which will be my First Main Team.

I'm really looking forward to see matches, which are really sped up and the tactical advice happens after the match on the stream. Most enjoyable match! :)

Tiny misplay: Flask is puffing the smoke cloud directly over himself-somehow nice and logical fluff-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the missed shot by scum scattered so close to the goal the ball path would have scattered into the alchemist goal resulting in a goal kick, unless they removed that rule in the recent update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one point Tapper announced a counterattack from Katalyst after he got hit with rabid animal. That's too late to trigger it.

Technically correct. My memory may be off a little, but I think I'm right in saying that Jamie played a little too quick that he'd resolved the attack before giving me the option to declare my response, so "gentlemanly conduct"* was applied :-)

(*You won't find this in any Rulebook or FAQ, only in the players themselves)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the missed shot by scum scattered so close to the goal the ball path would have scattered into the alchemist goal resulting in a goal kick, unless they removed that rule in the recent update.

This was changed during playtest (I forget exactly when). P.27 states that the goal-token is a barrier. Flip to p.63 and Barrier describes interaction with a free ball (ie displaced using rule of least disturbance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome match! Very informative to see how the best players think on the field. The "king of auras" joke is real though ; this game is really about space control, with "threat ranges" being a crucial concept. Thanks for all the details and for the strategic insights on those two teams. Brewers hit hard (Katalyst T_T)! And while I get the appeal of Mist over Calculus, Blind did influence the Brewers' plan so much that I am not sure how a second striker might have help. Surely things to ponder in the future.

A couple of questions though (might be better in rules clarifications but it might be faster that way):

- Calculus throws Blind on Hoops while being engaged by him. Jamie says that there is no "crowding out" penalty as Calculus is targeting Hooper but I cannot find any reference to that point in the rules.

- Clone says "you can ignore the next Character Play or Playbook result". Does Clone sustains if you choose not to?

Thank you (all) for the kind comments. I really enjoyed talking through my thought process and glad people enjoyed it too.

In answer to your specific questions:

- Jamie pulled a fast one on me ;-) As Ratty pointed out, p.50 under Brisket has the Play Bonus and Penalties, albeit in a different layout format

- Clone allows you to ignore the next play/attack. That is, literally, that. It's the next one, not the next one you wish to ignore :-) Whilst it may be a sustain, it's effects can only be triggered by the attack or play that first comes after its successful use

Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Calculus should have been hindered by Hoops, but since Blind is a 1 INF play, that actually does nothing, as the dice-pool can not go below one. OK. So the play did happen as intended.

I'm so confused with "legacy issues", hehe.

Hooper is DEF 3. Blind is TAC 1. Calculus was engaged by Hooper and therefore the [-1] TAC should have been applied. Bad form on both our parts for not doing this; the pressure of "performing live" clearly got to us both ;-)

To round this off, the Dice Pool is already [1], therefore the TN test will increase by [1] to TN [4]. This can then be Bonus Timed up to TAC [2]. The TN would remain at [4] as TAC and TN are calculated before adding the Bonus Time dice.

Cheers,

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, this has been a bit of confusing read! I think I may have missed something leading up to the summary: I understand that Dice Pools cannot be reduced to 0, and the interaction with Bonus Time! making that a 2 dice throw. Where I'm a bit lost is why the TN increased? Was the target model engaged? The way I'm reading it, the TN was increased because of the penalty to the Dice Pool, but I can't find the rules in the book to back that up. Adjusting the TN affects the dice pool, but from what I'm reading adjusting the dice pool doesn't affect the TN? Want to make sure I'm doing this bit correctly, I've been popping in on Vassal matches and helping them along if they hit any rules stumbling blocks so I want to make sure my understanding of everything is where it should be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat as Gary here: isn't that a legacy rule? Right now we have "if the TN changes too much, adapt the dice-pool", but not the opposite ("if the dice-pool changes too much, adapt the TN).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.38 under modifiers: Dice Pool cant go under 1 and the Tn can change the dice pool (=under 2-> + 1 die; over 6->-1.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SaBo - that bit we've got. But from his post it sounds like the dice pool is changing the TN, and we can't find anything in the book to support that.

The more I think on it it's probably just something else we're missing, like the target being engaged or something. I'll have to have another look at the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this is legacy confusion. Pretty sure it once worked by adjusting TN as I had that in my head too - but pg 38 has it working a bit differently - just pool modifiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for any confusion. Yes, the target (Hooper) was engaging the active model that was attempting to Blind him.

If the active model wasn't engaged then 90% of what I wrote was guff ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry Podfrey to be *that* guy, but I am still not sure which of the following two scenarios is "true".

 

1) There is a whole paragraph in the rules missing, where we have the following: "For each dice the dice-pool goes below 1, the TN is increased by 1. The TN cannot exceed 6+ even if you have more dice to remove." -> You are the referee, that is a possibility.

 

2) The seond part of what you said here:

 

Hooper is DEF 3. Blind is TAC 1. Calculus was engaged by Hooper and therefore the [-1] TAC should have been applied. Bad form on both our parts for not doing this; the pressure of "performing live" clearly got to us both ;-)

To round this off, the Dice Pool is already [1], therefore the TN test will increase by [1] to TN [4]. This can then be Bonus Timed up to TAC [2]. The TN would remain at [4] as TAC and TN are calculated before adding the Bonus Time dice.

is a mistake due to "legacy issues".

 

 

Right now (GuildBall_Season01.pdf), the modifiers on Plays - p50 - only modify the dice pool, and I can not find any rule that adds the previous change to TN on p38.

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  

×