Post by Joelercoaster on May 28, 2014 21:03:32 GMT -6
H'okay, so.
Played my first game of 7th, and used the Maelstrom cards. Initial reactions...
On the whole, I like the ebb-and-flow scoring system. I also think that it could use some fine tuning to improve the system.
Step the first, I played the mission where you only get 1 card a turn. In a deck where probably 1-in-4 is unusable, this is horrifically bad. I actually drew two cards that were impossible to score, but one I was allowed to re-draw thanks to a gracious opponent (I actually opted to keep the 2nd myself because it was just due to his list, rather than the mission at hand).
We both thought that keeping our objectives secret, despite what the mission says, could lead to some fun times... bluffing false objectives, sneaking onto real ones, there's a lot of fun to be had with that. That said, I have to say it almost felt like we were both playing a separate game. Sure, we clashed plenty, and there was barely anything on the board at the end... but unless it was an impossible objective, nothing was actually hard to score. It was just a trade-off of "I do this, I succeed" and then "you do this, you succeed", one point at a time (with the occasional d3).
To this end, I think drawing anywhere from 2-5 cards at a time, and having them be active for both players that turn, would lend more to a head-on conflict. Rather than score at the end of the player turn, see who's in charge at the end of each game turn. You'll still have some that are easier for certain armies, and some parts of the board will just be controlled by one or the other, but rather than "oh I guess I can push these 3 random gaunts", it turns into full sections clashing over one objective or another at a time. Scored cards would be replaced, and any card that was impossible for both players (say, no one brought a flyer) would be discarded at the end of the turn.
I'm not a huge fan of the d3 for certain cards. I'm all for having bonus points for the overkill, but I would opt for a "1 if you do it once, bonus 1 if you do it 3 times" approach. So instead of a d3, it would be worth a flat 2 instead. It rewards generalship and good ol' fashioned hard headedness, without relying on a lucky 5+ to swing it all in your favor.
I really like that this lends itself to mobile armies. Super-mobile is good (the bike army was able to zip around very easily) but by nature of having hordes, I was able to spread around enough to have the same general effect. Immobile Gunlines will hate these cards, and I fully support their tears.
All in all, I think this could be my new preferred method of play. Definitely more interesting than KP's. A couple of small tweaks and I think this could really be a great objective system.
Played my first game of 7th, and used the Maelstrom cards. Initial reactions...
On the whole, I like the ebb-and-flow scoring system. I also think that it could use some fine tuning to improve the system.
Step the first, I played the mission where you only get 1 card a turn. In a deck where probably 1-in-4 is unusable, this is horrifically bad. I actually drew two cards that were impossible to score, but one I was allowed to re-draw thanks to a gracious opponent (I actually opted to keep the 2nd myself because it was just due to his list, rather than the mission at hand).
We both thought that keeping our objectives secret, despite what the mission says, could lead to some fun times... bluffing false objectives, sneaking onto real ones, there's a lot of fun to be had with that. That said, I have to say it almost felt like we were both playing a separate game. Sure, we clashed plenty, and there was barely anything on the board at the end... but unless it was an impossible objective, nothing was actually hard to score. It was just a trade-off of "I do this, I succeed" and then "you do this, you succeed", one point at a time (with the occasional d3).
To this end, I think drawing anywhere from 2-5 cards at a time, and having them be active for both players that turn, would lend more to a head-on conflict. Rather than score at the end of the player turn, see who's in charge at the end of each game turn. You'll still have some that are easier for certain armies, and some parts of the board will just be controlled by one or the other, but rather than "oh I guess I can push these 3 random gaunts", it turns into full sections clashing over one objective or another at a time. Scored cards would be replaced, and any card that was impossible for both players (say, no one brought a flyer) would be discarded at the end of the turn.
I'm not a huge fan of the d3 for certain cards. I'm all for having bonus points for the overkill, but I would opt for a "1 if you do it once, bonus 1 if you do it 3 times" approach. So instead of a d3, it would be worth a flat 2 instead. It rewards generalship and good ol' fashioned hard headedness, without relying on a lucky 5+ to swing it all in your favor.
I really like that this lends itself to mobile armies. Super-mobile is good (the bike army was able to zip around very easily) but by nature of having hordes, I was able to spread around enough to have the same general effect. Immobile Gunlines will hate these cards, and I fully support their tears.
All in all, I think this could be my new preferred method of play. Definitely more interesting than KP's. A couple of small tweaks and I think this could really be a great objective system.
