View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 21st, 2017, 6:47 pm

Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
 Glitch's June 9 packet Playtest 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 477
35point game, using standard objective rules. The game took about 2 hours and 15 minutes, including setup and a briefing of rules changes.

Noh Empire
Marikan To
Hatriya Warriors (2)
Kyojin Berserkers (3)

Novitiates (4+Upgrade)

Noh won 4-0, with all VP from combat. Even though the Doctrine wasn't hampered by engagement, they couldn't out-damage the Noh, especially with the Noh's greater average health per model.
Lakmi once again proved to be very strong against units with weak defenses, but was also effective against Castor. I still wouldn't risk using a cypher in a drawn-out fight, but with the increased surviveability I am not as hesitant about being more active with them.

Rules Questions
1. After the enemy model is pushed away, does the active unit move into contact in the shortest route, or can it be positioned at any point on the target model's base?
2. For a squad with overrun, I assume that all models are moved to maintain cohesion when the unit is placed in contact; I do not believe all models in the squad need to be placed in contact with the target, but how it their movement handled? Can I place them anywhere in cohesion?
-Suggested fix is to simply push the target model X, and then have all members of the active unit move X directly toward the target.

Is it possible that the wording on guard could be made more clear? My opponent and I had a discussion about about how it is ambiguous if the damage applied is rounded up, or the damage prevented is rounded up. (IE if you guard against a damage 11 attack, is the damage after guard 5 or 6?)

As we understand the stat card, Each "version" has one action, with the action under the rules for switching versions being shared. Could the shared ability be labeled with both names or could the order be reversed? (IE Catch me if you can, then switching rules, then Bicker and Harmony)

Other Thoughts
The cost on Whirling Blade seems really high for a single point of shielding. Not saying the number isn't justified, but it feels bad to need to pay that much (3R1P) for a small benefit. It did make the difference between the model living and dying, but I doubt I'd attempt to use it in any other circumstance.

As I play games and read other reports, I'm starting to feel that the vanilla cadre abilities are perhaps too strong. If you assume that units are internally balanced, then giving a unit +2 damage or +2 armor, especially when they can easily gain those buffs turn after turn, really skews the power balance. I'd rather see unique and interesting effects from the tokens on the Knights instead of vanilla combat modifiers. For example, the Hatriya can easily get up to 14 damage (7 base + 2 from coordinated attack + 2 from Blood in the Water, and then 3 from Overrun collision, which they can set up by positioning to cause a collision with themselves).

I tracked our actions for this game; the victory was scored through combat alone, and we took 26 actions, with an additional small number of unit activations that were movement only (or double token placement near the end of the game for Doctrine). I didn't think to track the no action turns, but I estimate 31 or 33 activation tokens.
(I counted a success if the player was able to pay for the action from the flip+hand)
21 combat flips, 15 successes
5 AoE flips, 1 success (These were "might as well try something" more than they were expected to be useful; throwaway actions)
12 Defense flips, 3 successes (both players followed the mantra "A good offense is the best defense," so paying for defenses from hand was less likely, especially with the higher average cost of defense actions)

Armor flips:
A1 4 flips, 2 successes, preventing 1 damage each
A2 3 flips, 2 successes, preventing 2 and 1 damage
A3 6 flips, 5 successes, preventing 1,4,3,2,2 damage

Card draw feels a lot better, and as you can see from these numbers, total action success rate was 50%, skewed toward the player's focus of attacks over defenses.

We played the table on the slightly sparse side of the terrain suggestion, as I was worried about too much density limiting/dictating objective placement.

June 15th, 2017, 4:05 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.