|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
We have hit an impasse. PT hasn't helped clarify the direction we want to go with a new ability, so we thought we'd throw it out to the community here to help us decide. I will simply list the two versions of the ability we are playing with (and understand that it's possible both might one day be released, but in this set it will be only one of the two). Discuss the ramifications of both, positive and negative, and give us your vote.
Proximity Mines 20 (Replaces attacks: range 6; Target enemy is mined. At the beginning of the mined character's next turn, the mined character and each character adjacent take 20 damage, save 11 for 10 damage)
alternately
Remote Mine 40 (Replaces Attacks: range 6; Target enemy is mined. At the beginning of this character's next turn, the mined character and each character adjacent takes 40 damage, save 11 for 20 damage)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
Note that the damage involved isn't changing; it will be either Proximity Mines 20/40 or Remote Mines 20/40. So the fact that one is 20 damage (save for 10) and the other is 40 damage (save for 20) is irrelevant.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/2/2011
Posts: 163
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
I like Proximity Mines better. By having the damage trigger by your opponent's action, it becomes harder to use (because your strategy has to include thinking through when your opponent will choose to trigger it). More complexity in the tactics is always (IMHO) a good thing.
By forcing the opponent to trigger the mines you create interesting situations where he has to move other characters away from the mined character, activate in an order he wouldn't otherwise, and generally participate in a more active way.
Remote mines seem more passive, it's something your opponent is doing to you and there isn't as much you can do about it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/7/2008
Posts: 400
|
To be honest, I sort of like them both. Theoretically, I imagine they play very differently (speaking personally, I've playtested against one of them but not the other).
If the mines go off on the attacker's turn (Remote Mines), they are best used at the end of the round, when the miner can place them then (assuming he wins initiative) activate them at the top of the next round. There's nothing the defender can do... except hope to win initiative and then position the mined character. The biggest downside to Remote Mines as written is that if the mining character is defeated before they're activated, you've wasted an attack on mines that will never go off.
That puts a HUGE target on the back of the character with Remote Mines.
Proximity Mines aguably place more control in the hands of the defender (the mined character), although again a properly timed strike can take that away. Since the defender essentially determines (within limits) when the Mines will activate, the theoretically have an opportunity to move allies away from the mined character, reducing the damage output. I think the net result with Proximity Mines is that there will be less collateral damage, but the defending player will be forced to activate in a particular order.
I think they're both interesting, and can have a role in the game, but if I had to pick one, I think Remote Mines is scarier but also more fun. It's a gamble for the attacker, but if it pays off, it pays off big.
As a side-note: If you played Tarpals with a character with either of these abilities, is there any reason the same character couldn't be targeted twice? That's not technically stacking, right?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
gwek wrote:As a side-note: If you played Tarpals with a character with either of these abilities, is there any reason the same character couldn't be targeted twice? That's not technically stacking, right? I'm not the rules expert, but I believe that while you could technically target the same target twice, there would be no reason to because it wouldn't stack. Just like if you use Force Corruption 2 on a character and then use Force Corruption 3, you only save for Corruption 3. Although after looking at the glossary, it seems that the only reason that works that way is because the glossary explicitly states it. If we don't put that line in the glossary ("The effects of Force Corruption do not stack; use only the highest-cost version affecting the target."), it might stack. But we will probably follow the precedent that Corruption set and not let it stack.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Echo24 wrote:
Although after looking at the glossary, it seems that the only reason that works that way is because the glossary explicitly states it. If we don't put that line in the glossary ("The effects of Force Corruption do not stack; use only the highest-cost version affecting the target."), it might stack. But we will probably follow the precedent that Corruption set and not let it stack.
In either case, it should be stated in the glossary. If it were not stated, I would assume it did not stack.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,410
Location: Chokio, MN
|
I prefer Proximity Mines 20/40 since in a situation you throw the Remote Mine 2 to 6 squares and land it on a target, the target of the attack would just move adjacent to you and wait for your turn and then you both take damage. Doesn't really make much sense to me for that to happen. With Proxity mine, the person takes the damage before they move. If you proximity mine an adjacent target, well your just being stupid and you deserve to take the damage from the aoo as you move away so that you don't take proximity mine damage when that person moves.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010
Posts: 1,291
|
I like the proximity mine, but me and Deaths Baine had a question. Would it be like Force Corruption to where if they make the save they are no longer mined? Or is this a doomed fate for whoever gets mined?
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
My vote: Proximity Mines.
As they are, I like Proximity Mines a lot better. I like that it gives the opponent a difficult decision. If allies are adjacent, do you move them away first or do you activate characters in the order you wanted to in the first place? In contrast to the Remote Mines, I like that they go off even if the attacker dies.
I don't like Remote Mines as it is. If both are eventually made, I'd rather the two versions had another twist besides just when they went off. Like allowing Remote Mines to be placed in an empty square:
Remote Mines 40 (Replaces Attacks: range 6; Target square is mined. At the end of this character's next turn, characters in the mined square or any adjacent square take 40 damage, save 11 for 20 damage.)
Something along those lines. This also prevents a mined character from moving adjacent to you or your allies before you activate. Also, if they go off at the end of the turn, then that gives the attacker a chance to move farther away. It wouldn't usually make a difference, but it's more thematic (mines going off later), and it could make a difference if the mine layer needs to move adjacent to where they want to lay the mines for targeting reasons. They could then lay the mines and move away before they go off.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010
Posts: 1,029
|
Remote Mines + Dominate!
Proximity Mines + Self Destruct!
I'd favor Remote mines, as it offers an added level of defense (defeat the character that used the ability), as well as a potential bigger payout.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2009
Posts: 518
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
|
I really like Proximity Mines 
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Lord_Ball wrote:Remote Mines + Dominate!
Proximity Mines + Self Destruct!
I'd favor Remote mines, as it offers an added level of defense (defeat the character that used the ability), as well as a potential bigger payout. The damage would be the same either way (according to Echo24). billiv15 posted two different versions that happened to have different damage levels, but the question was about the mechanic rather than the damage level.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010
Posts: 1,029
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Lord_Ball wrote:Remote Mines + Dominate!
Proximity Mines + Self Destruct!
I'd favor Remote mines, as it offers an added level of defense (defeat the character that used the ability), as well as a potential bigger payout. The damage would be the same either way (according to Echo24). billiv15 posted two different versions that happened to have different damage levels, but the question was about the mechanic rather than the damage level. The bigger potential payout wasn't a reference to the damage values it was a reference to possible tactics. Remote mines is based on the user controlling when it goes off - i.e. 2 enemies are adjacent to each other - mine one, dominate - mines explode (damaging both enemies), re-mine [next turn] whereas Proximity mines - mine one, the other moves away, the mined character activates - mines explode [next turn] EDIT: perhaps it'd be more interesting if proximity mines was tailored to trigger on the mined characters movement - then it could be defended via standing in one spot, or triggered via force push.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
I like them both. I like Remote Mines more, but then I like risky abilities in general. Definitely trickier to use. Both force some unplanned strategic decisions. Good stuff. 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
Yes, the reason for the difference in the damage was that we actually sent out both abilities with different damage to different PT groups to help us gauge which they liked the best. But the 40/20 is the damage we are going with as Echo posted. It's simply the mechanic that I am asking about.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 388
|
swinefeld wrote:I like them both. I like Remote Mines more, but then I like risky abilities in general. Definitely trickier to use. Both force some unplanned strategic decisions. Good stuff. Yeah I like riskier abilities as well. The game has too much easy damage as is anyway. In this case Remote and Proximity are both tricky but in very different ways. I was in favor of Remote Mines, but I think I might be a backer of Proximity Mines now. Proximity Mines causes a lot more interference as people suggested, and while I like the strategy and luck of Remote Mines, I think the interference makes Proximity he stronger ability. It will make the game more lively and interesting. And Glad to see you are back and discussing Testing Matters Bill.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/14/2008
Posts: 2,063
|
The mechanic? I would go with Prox Mines. Making people scurry like rats is fun.
Now, a couple of bizarre points that you can freely ignore as they are merely rambles.
Name: I believe that "remote mines" may cause some problems if it is used with other "mine" abilities, like Prox Mines and Mines in general. May I suggest "Remote Detonator?" As of now, there are no versions of Detonator. And if Thermal Detonators are created, it's accepted that they are Grenades 40. Granted, this is if there are no new SAs with Detonator in them.
Distance: I have a hard time thinking of range 6 for the actual act of mining something. Now, if you are in space, you can just jettison mines and let them go about their business. Most of the time, in a skirmish, you would be adjacent to "mine" an object if you are prox mining. If you are "remote" mining something, it could be similar to "Sight." I am assuming this abstraction is that of a tossed grenade-like object with a magnetic or adhesive coating to adhere to the target, hence the range 6.
I know it's just an abstraction, but I thought I would at least chime in on those portions of it as well.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 388
|
We can always assume that the Mines are launched from a Gun. Figure it like a grenade launcher on a rifle, same thing really. It has been done in many video games as well. My personal favorite being in Turok 2, it used to blow enemies legs clear off haha. ahh yes, the good ol days
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/14/2008
Posts: 2,063
|
Dimetrodon wrote:We can always assume that the Mines are launched from a Gun. Figure it like a grenade launcher on a rifle, same thing really. Yeah, forgot about the gun. I guess that would be more spacey than just lobbing. So, I retract the comment about distance.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 168
|
I probably prefer remote mines (Golden Eye 64 anyone?).
Anyways, hopefully a cool bounty hunter will get this...
|
|
|
Guest |