|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Dec 13, 2009 10:51:43 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree re: Strategist and stand by I disagreeertion that it is a "forced hand" ability unlike anything that currently exists in the game... However, let's table that particular discussion for now and see if we can work around it. What? 3) As a strategist, one his accomplishments was for force the Old Republic to commit to engagements that they might not have wanted to be involved in, and to fully commit, if not overcommit. Isn't this exactly what Strategist does? You're really confusing me know. As for the tempo control counter (I think that's what you're suggesting): while it is interesting, it is, IMO, would take even more fun out of the game than you think Strategist would. While Strategist only works for one phase/round, the tempo control counter would disable something many, many squads are based around. This would be even more annoying, IMO, than choosing the characters your opponent activates in one phase.
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Dec 13, 2009 11:33:22 GMT -5
There's a big difference between taking away one of an opponent's advantages (this is comparable to Never Tell Me the Odds) vs forcing a decision on them ("You MUST use these 2 characters now").
While on the surface, I can see how you would say negating someone like Ozzel is a similar "forced decision," one is an "ability negater" (comparable to Never Tell Me the Odds or Disruptive) while the other is something that affects a core strategic decision.
Very different in terms of game design.
|
|
|
Post by darthgrievous on Dec 13, 2009 12:16:49 GMT -5
Anywho, after a quick read up on Cassus, here are my two ideas...
1. Master Tactician seems like it is a must have for Cassus, it is what he did.
2. After more thought, he was able to call in to the Dreadnaught class warships and shoot down Fission Bombs, anyone thought about an ability something called maybe Aerial Bombardment. Perhaps word it much like Holo Veers Fire Support Mission, just a thought is all.
Carry on with your "Strategist, Foresight" convo
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Dec 13, 2009 14:21:48 GMT -5
gwek: It's not like Strategist tells your opponent where to move them, it just says who they must activate. For ONE phase. That means it gives my characters a one phase break from heavy damage, or whatever, so they can activate themselves. Then your big guns activate and they die anyway. It is ONE phase. Two characters. Sure, I force you to do it. But that's the same as FORCING your VAU to use Force Lightning 5 on one of your characters (through Dominate), or FORCING your Boba BH to disintegrate himself (through Bombad General), or FORCING you to go first in a round (Master Tactician), or activating three of your characters in one turn before they can activate (with Yoda of Dagobah), or cancelling a CE (with Disruptive) or MT (NTMTO), or FORCING your character to move in a certain way (Force Push/Force Repulse) or FORCING an enemy to target a certain character because of Draw Fire. Need I go on? Sure, they aren't EXACTLY what Strategist does, but they're all examples of forcing your opponent/his pieces to do something he doesn't want to. Like I've said, it does annoy them, but it doesn't take any fun out of the game. They counter my tricks with tricks of there own. darthgrievous: MT is a possibility, but we're thinking of giving him a toned-down MT, something like this: Skilled Tactician X (You automatically choose who goes first except on a roll lower than X) The Aerial Bombardment idea is interesting. What do we think of that?
|
|
|
Post by Roque Saber on Dec 13, 2009 14:57:21 GMT -5
I don't think Aerial Bombardment would work with how the game is set up at this point.
As for Strategist, I think GWEk's point is that while other abilities also force you to do something, Strategist takes away much more from the player.
Perhaps we could redo the ability or come to a middle ground?
Also, after GWEk's reference to Cassus implementing the standardized armor and MtU having Conscription, would it be possible to let Cassus also have Conscription? He would be a much cheaper option than Mandalore if you wanted to build a team out of it and it's a really cool ability.
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Dec 13, 2009 23:11:29 GMT -5
gwek: It's not like Strategist tells your opponent where to move them, it just says who they must activate. For ONE phase. That means it gives my characters a one phase break from heavy damage, or whatever, so they can activate themselves. Then your big guns activate and they die anyway. It is ONE phase. Two characters. I'm sorry, but it's a completely different scale of decision. Dominate requires that the dominating character give up his turn. It also gives the character being dominated a saving throw. Your Strategist has no such limits. Bombad Gungan. works only if Jar Jar is targeted, which is the opponent's choice. Unless Jar Jar is paired with a character with Dominate, you cannot force your opponent to "initiative" Bombad Gungan. It is always your opponent's choice if they want to risk targeting Jar Jar (or a character within 6 squares) or not. The person who wins initiative always forces the other player's choice. That is build into the core of the game. All Master Tatician does is change the odds (and it is balanced by the threat of Never Tell Me the Odds, which negates it, therefore setting the changes back the original state). None of these things are comparable to what your Strategist does. That doesn't force a decision on your opponent in any way. I've already addressed this. Denying your opponent an advantage is very different than forcing a decision on them. These are the result of use of a Force attack. Yes, you are controlling their movement, but (like Dominate), it's on your turn. And while it does move the characters, your opponent is free to move them as he choses once again when they next activate. As with Bombad Gungan, you cannot FORCE an opponent to activate Draw Fire. They are always in control of who they target, and can CHOOSE whether they want to risk the Draw Fire save or not. None of these are comparable to forcing a player to use two SPECIFIC characters at a SPECIFIC time in the game. I would say that the majority of these have a tactical effect, whereas what you're proposing has a strategic effect. Further, the majority of the abilities you've cited are reactionary, require an expenditure of resources (such as Force points or "replaces turn") or have some other limiter, offer a saving throw, or simply negate an advantage. Your Strategist has no such limitations. Not comparable to anything in the game.
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Dec 13, 2009 23:13:57 GMT -5
I don't think Aerial Bombardment would work with how the game is set up at this point. I agree. Well, sure, you can reduce it to a few words if you want. Perhaps a more limited version that only works on non-Uniques? Or perhaps it should be a commander effect, so that it is subject to Disruptive (and therefore not as "powerful" as MtU's version).
|
|
|
Post by darthgrievous on Dec 13, 2009 23:20:06 GMT -5
OK anyway, besides all the technicalities, how about back to the piece at hand
Skilled Tactician, you automatically choose who goes first except on a roll of less than 11. This makes it 50/50
Aerial Bombardment was something Cassus was known for, I think you need to atleast consider it if you are still going to argue this foresight nonsense. You dont need to make it as crappy as Veers was, but you could atleast make it worth while for decent massive strike.
|
|
|
Post by Roque Saber on Dec 13, 2009 23:27:39 GMT -5
But it just doesn't work well with SWM's mechanics. Fire Support Mission also didn't work as, IMO. Giant planetary strikes are better suited for 40k Apocalypse games, not SWM skirmishes.
That would make sense (for it only to work on non-uniques). However, making it into a CE would seem too much like we copy/pasted a SA into a CE. Could we change the name and give it the slightly different effect? (Kind of like Force Lightning being downgraded to Sith Lightning)
|
|
|
Post by darthgrievous on Dec 13, 2009 23:36:26 GMT -5
I dont know, I saw Veers Fire Support Mission work quite well last week. Doesn't mean we'd have to word it at all like Veers'.
Aerial Bomardment-replaces turn, sight, ignores cover, 60 dmg to target and each adjacent character, save 11 to reduce dmg to 20
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Dec 14, 2009 0:28:56 GMT -5
Part of the reason that Veers works well is because he's a very unconventional piece. Although Cassus did bomb a few planets, I'm a little nervous about the game balance effect of a conventional combatant ALSO having the option to call in an airstrike. Although Veers can be very powerful, he's also fragile, which Cassus is not.
If we're going to make him an effective combatant AND give him superior tactical abilities AND give him something like this, he'll wind up costing as much as GMLS!
For the record, I'm not necessarily saying that it's inappropriate for him, but we have so many different ideas and different directions that perhaps we need to discuss the core of what we want to piece to be able to do for his faction before we get into details of HOW the piece will do that.
|
|
|
Post by darthgrievous on Dec 14, 2009 9:10:54 GMT -5
So it seems now that we have made two Cassus Fett's. One of a superior tactician and the other a superior tactician. What approach are we thinking then? I originally thought we were thinking heavy support character for Mandalore but a super tactician to go with it.
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Dec 14, 2009 9:36:33 GMT -5
Based on the discussion, I see a few different options:
1) Is he a capable front line fighter or just a commander type?
2) Exactly how good a tactician is he? On par with Thrawn?
3) Do we include some sort of conscription/recruitment ability based on his Neo-Crusader history?
4) Do we include something related to planetary bombardment?
If the answer is "yes" to questions #3 and #4, and he's also getting a lot from #1 and #2, we're going to wind up with an expensive (and likely too complicated) character.
He needs some focus.
*****
My personal opinion is:
1. "Strong fighter" (he is a Mando leader, after all)
2. Decent (but not master) tactician (Thrawn or Sidious would have this guy for breakfast, and he was no challenge to Revan)
3. Tentative "yes" to conscription (if we can make it work without stealing (ManUlt's thunder)
4. "no" to orbital bombardment (simply because it's hard to make it work successfully in character-scale combat, in terms of game balance; it also seems like something to base a character around, not as an "add on").
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Dec 14, 2009 13:50:56 GMT -5
Okay so Strategist is dead. Whatever. Neither of us will change our mind.
But, moving onto Cassus, I think gwek is leading us in the right way. I am against giving him Conscription, though. That is really the only reason to play the overcosted MtU, and I don't think we should give it to a cheaper character that also has other tactical options.
How good of a tactician do we think this guy is? Do we give him Skilled Tactician with 11 or with 6?
As for how good of a combatant he should be, I think something like a slight improvement over the base Mando stats (give Cassus 50-70 HP, 18 or 19 def, 8-10 atk) and either 20 damage or 10 damage with Twin or Double.
I agree with the rest of gwek's opinions in his last post.
|
|
|
Post by Roque Saber on Dec 14, 2009 13:58:41 GMT -5
He should definately be able to hold his own in combat. Think Mandalorian Commander from BH. As for Skilled Tactition, he was definitely one of the best strategists of his time (second only to Revan). Revan has MT, so I think ST with a roll a 6 or higher would work.
And I'm still for a Conscription ability.
|
|