Im noticing now that with the number of double veterans cards, Adamantine weapons feel overpowered. I don't think this was an issue previously because originally sets didn't have many cards that had this power. Now it seems common on most Henchmen causing these weapons to feel overpowered. In Set 4, this weapons have effective bonus of +8 stacked on top of whatever other bonus the card gives.
I would like to see Adamantine weapons be FAQ'd to not work on the veteran ability or henchman going forward (in the seasons and future box sets) not having the double veteran ability and just have a higher base number.
Just a thought.
I've already got this jotted down as something to keep an eye on going forward, absolutely.
MM only has 15 Veteran monsters, Wrath 11, S&S 9, so in my play experience it's awesome but not game bending (it's most obvious on monsters you summon for location closes). That said, Veteran feels like a concept that will keep increasing in use over time (as it has already been).
I loved the Veteran trait. I thought it was one of the best traits on monsters to keep the game intense. It's just recently I have seen a character trivializing this with an Adamantine weapon.
Playing Devil's Advocate, There are very Few Adamantine weapons in the class decks. There is one in each of the Fighter, Ranger, Monk, and Tales decks. In addition to being rare, I think only the fighter one is a d8+3. The others feel weak and probably why I have not seen the issue come up before. I think the ranger is 1d6+1. While the monk and Tales decks have a sai that is 1d4+2.
P.S. I don't know about the decks pass the magus deck. I wouldnt think they are common.
That said, Veteran feels like a concept that will keep increasing in use over time (as it has already been).
Oh, f-
I mean, that much *was* obvious, but I also hope y'all cut back on that "double-veteran" crap. As I vented elsewhere, it's completely ridiculous when your supposedly more powerful AD5 heroes now have *harder* time dealing with something that was pushover in AD0.
MM Veterans, to me, felt a lot more than 15 - but this is probably due to their heavy over-use as scenario henchmen and, as Keith mentions, as "to close" summon henchmen. So I don't think we should be counting the Veteran cards themselves - but the instances in which they're encountered. If someone bothers to do the math, I suppose the ratio between, say, MM and S&S will be a lot higher than 15:9
(Also, I don't mind as much if it's on monstrous creatures that supposedly can have scaling size and power variations, like a Golem or a Giant Eel, I suppose. But when it turns out a measly Cultist or Voice of Pharasma has ended up advancing more through the Adventures than your characters - you have to ask yourself, who are the real "heroes" here...)
MM Veterans, to me, felt a lot more than 15 - but this is probably due to their heavy over-use as scenario henchmen and, as Keith mentions, as "to close" summon henchmen. So I don't think we should be counting the Veteran cards themselves - but the instances in which they're encountered. If someone bothers to do the math, I suppose the ratio between, say, MM and S&S will be a lot higher than 15:9
I agree with this. It FEELS like we deal with A LOT more veteran monsters in this season due to seeing them on closing henchmen and whatnot.
I do disagree with your general feeling of "double-veteran" crap. I realise it's more an optics issue with the Cultist and such, but within the confines of the game it's the best way to keep the monster scaling.
I agree that veteran trait is very important to keep some monsters somewhat challenging. More important with bigger croups I think.
I Also agree that it is a problem if weapons or allies or items nullify the veteran trait, because the game would become easier in higher levels when it should be more challenging IMHO.
There are lots of weapons/items/spells/etc. that can trivialize various encounters. This is the one that happens to nail Veterans. IMHO, there aren't enough adamantine weapons in general to make it much of an issue, and even then the odds are against you getting one, and even THEN the game has ways of making sure you don't keep it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do disagree with your general feeling of "double-veteran" crap. I realise it's more an optics issue with the Cultist and such, but within the confines of the game it's the best way to keep the monster scaling.
That's the thing - I'm not altogether against banes' scaling (I think "single Veterans" are doing it well, and if used right they enhance the experience), but *double* Veterans are really skewing the scales and I remain unconvinced that there should be banes with checks to defeat that start out at, say 6:4 in favor of your newbie characters, and then -against you allegedly maxed-out top-of-the-line characters - they end up *outright impossible to beat* (both cases excluding the expenditure of additional resources like blessings).
I mean, you yourself suggested it in the OP - I'd much rather a monster starts off stronger, and then scale with players.
I realize I'm in the minority here, and the (double-)Veterans are not only here to stay, but I'll have to deal with them even more in the future, but I'd I'd rather there is a dissenting opinion on record.
Both x1 or x2 Veteran have their problems; that's one reason why I've tested a couple Veterans in recent OP that are x1 for non-combat checks and x2 for combat checks, which is a lot closer to the way characters scale.
Even with that scaling, my testing is generally that Veterans (with some exceptions) are easier than at-scenario AD monsters due to the (less visible) scaling of powers on the monsters. That is, you're more likely to face horrible BYA and AYAs, buries instead of recharges, and other weird effects that are harder to plan around on the higher AD banes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel that 2x veteren on combat checks scales faster than the players. You get 1 skill feat per adventure, which already cancels out 1x, but then you also get upgraded cards, power feats, and just generally better tuned decks. I think for a combat check it would really have to be 3x to keep up.
Non-combat checks mind you, if you're surprised by them especially, could well go from being a d4 in B to still a d4 in 6, and then you're really relying on general purpose power feats to keep up with even 1x.
I haven't played MM yet, but, well, it certainly surprises me that a weapon dealing with veterens is considered overpowered. I'm sure it would trivialise veteren fights, but that's the upside of being very specialised. Just like Potion of the Ocean trivialises a certain subset of encounters, but I still ended up taking it out of my Damiel deck in favour of cards that work against everything. Surely none of the villains or named henchmen have veteren, and you're paying for that specialisation by being weaker in the most critical fights?
Couldn't agree more with Irgy.
Granted, I don't like barriers in general, but the 2x veteran on monsters has never even come close to be as much of a problem as 1x veteran on barriers / non-combat checks.
I'm tinkering with SnS currently while also playing its Season with a couple of friends, and I hate most of its barriers/non-combat monsters with a passion. For example, yesterday, I failed with 3d6 = 9 against a Siren Caller of Wisdom 10 in AD2 (we wasted 2 blessings, and that was all we could do in that situation!), which is the same as one of the Naga *villains* in *AD3*. That will grow up to Wisdom 14 over the course of the game, and my d6 will probably stay where it is; at that point, you might as well surrender the location until you can shuffle the villain into it. And don't get me even started on the magnificent b$+~+*~& that is the Seaweed Siren.
MM is better in this regard because it gives you way more tools to overcome its barriers, but even then I seem to remember that there were 2x veteran barriers which I could really do without.
On the other hand, the Buccaneers, Ruffians and Hammerhead Sharks are pretty pathetic starting with AD1 and stay that way throughout the rest of the AD, 1x Veteran or not. Things start to get a bit interesting again when you fulfill their conditions to turn them into 2x Veterans, but those can easily be avoided (especially in the season).
SnS would've been much better if it's veteran's combat checks started out with a higher base difficulty, while their non-combat checks started with a lower base difficulty, which is also the approach that MM took for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel that 2x veteren on combat checks scales faster than the players.
While I'd leave pro/against double Veterans to personal opinion, I just don't see the statement above as being factually correct.
Let's take the most basic example of a fighter with 'reveal' weapon for Combat. It all comes down to the fact that you may not have more than +4 upgrade to your main combat stat; then, you're left to compensate with the 'flat' bonus for Magic weapons - which would be +3 if you're lucky, but more likely +2. In the later case, in AD6 you break *even* with *single* Veterans, and only +1 ahead in the former case. Therefore, best case scenario, a Double Veteran in AD6 would be at +5 ahead of you, compared to the challenge he presents at AD0.
Yes, SOME characters can gain reveals powers that add to Combat, but most do not. So, you *likely* can generate a better roll against AD6 Double Veteran compared to AD0 - but it will cost you a recharge or topdeck, at the very least.
Otherwise, I also completely agree on non-Combat check. Even more than barriers however, I'm pissed off by To Close checks. Barring any reveal power upgrades again, my *specialist* for any given location maxes out at +4, while the location maxes at +6 - so my best guy ends up at objective (-2). Way to go, hero! And let's not talk about parties that have the audacity not to bring any Acrobatics or Fortitude or what-have-you to the table...
I don't feel that 2x veteren on combat checks scales faster than the players. You get 1 skill feat per adventure, which already cancels out 1x, but then you also get upgraded cards, power feats, and just generally better tuned decks. I think for a combat check it would really have to be 3x to keep up.
It sounds like we need more Pigs From Hell :)
Half-jokes aside, I agree with the general sentiment that 1x veteran barriers are often much more troublesome than a 1x or even 2x veteran monster. I'd also agree with Keith that 1x veterans feel weaker than current AD monsters who have BYA/AYA checks
Example-- SnS Galvo (AD5) has a BYA for each character at your location- Dex/Acro 13 or be dealt 1d6 electricity damage. DC 18 combat. Compare that to a Hammerhead Shark that even at AD6 is only DC 15 combat with no BYA/AYA. Again contrast this to a SnS Pirate Bomber (AD6) which has BYA 1d4 fire damage to each character at your location. DC 22 combat. Even if our poor hammerhead shark was 2x veteran it would only be DC 21 combat without the BYA 1d4 fire damage.
That is to say, I generally consider veteran monsters weaker than higher AD monsters. Thematically they may have gotten stronger, but they don't seem like they have learned new tricks. Perhaps text that reads "if the current AD is 5 or higher, this monster gains "BYA ...." which would mean not only is the difficulty of combat scaling, but the monster is also learning in the journey and they don't keep coming back without new tricks.
I don't think that is what bothers Longshot (reason I have not kept up the discussion). He is more bothered by the fact that he has to expend more resources in AD4 to beat the double Veteran than he did in AD1, even though his character is more powerful.
He also doesn't like the Aesthetics of the situation with the peon creature now causing him problems.
I kind of agree with his sentiments, but there is no clean way to scale the game without replacing the monsters with new ones for every set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not far off from the RPG, though. At 1st level, beating a 1st level cleric is no big deal; you might do it with a single hit, no expenditure.
At 15th level, you're going to want to expend some resources against a 15th level cleric or you might be looking at multiple deaths.
It's not like a Veteran cultist is a 1st level cultist throughout. At AD6, that's representing cultists that are chucking around death spells and blade barriers.
Higher AD characters, mind, also have many more options for success than numbers. More cards in hand, more ease at getting them back, and a bevy of power feats for dealing with more situations.
My view is that any monster that has the Veteran trait, regardless of the adventure deck level at which that monster is introduced, isn't a "peon." Such monsters are banes that are intended to scale with the adventures/characters. So that Marine you encounter in adventure 5 isn't the same Marine that you encountered in adventure B. Sure, it's the same card, but this one is someone bigger and badder. Or if you prefer, while you've been out adventuring and gathering loot and leveling up, he's been training and likewise gaining experience and loot and leveling up; so he's tougher to beat now than he was when he was just a wet behind the ears punk you ran into on the beach. The card is the same, but the threat is commensurate with your character's abilities; depending on how your character's abilities have developed, you may have to expend more resources to defeat the higher level Veteran card than you did at lower levels.
That just keeps the game from being too easy; and it provides economy in the cards, allowing other cards to be in the set (which is always a good thing).
Does it look like the forum exploded to anyone else? Frencois and Brother Tyler both have posts that look like random letters and numbers and a few symbols.
Does it look like the forum exploded to anyone else? Frencois and Brother Tyler both have posts that look like random letters and numbers and a few symbols.
We're currently in between code rolls. That particular post is trying to access some of the new code and failing to do so which is causing the behavior. We're working to get it resolved asap!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
%GZIP%H4sIAAAAAAAAAE2RQWvDMAyF
Aaagh I was struck by the wrath of the goblin post!
No clue why.What was in the post originally:
...He is more bothered by the fact that he has to expend more resources in AD4 to beat the double Veteran than he did in AD1, even though his character is more powerful....
I'm not following.
Do we really want adventures to become easier and easier when we become real heroes?Not me anyway.
I want our heroes' challenges to be harder and harder as we advance in "levels", up to be big final showdown.
That's what heroism is about IMHO.
So I'm all in favor of veterans (and all the rest for that matter) being harder and harder vs the heroes at any point of the progression. That's why we thought going from X1 to X2 was really going in the good direction.
IMHO.
Just for clarity, my post in between theirs was also rendered unto garbage, but I edited it back to normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just worried it was some secret code or something. My French isn't very good, but I was pretty sure it wasn't French.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like a base64-encoding of gzipped text. So if you base64-decode it, then ungzip, you get the actual text of the post (seems to be in bbcode format).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just worried it was some secret code or something. My French isn't very good, but I was pretty sure it wasn't French.
The French was good. It's just the Alsace's accent. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not following.
You are not following, but this is probably more a failure on my part to articulate my point.
Do we really want adventures to become easier and easier when we become real heroes? Not me anyway. I want our heroes' challenges to be harder and harder as we advance in "levels", up to be big final showdown. That's what heroism is about IMHO. So I'm all in favor of veterans (and all the rest for that matter) being harder and harder vs the heroes at any point of the progression. That's why we thought going from X1 to X2 was really going in the good direction.
I couldn't not agree more with this paragraph. Below is my quote from the 3rd post:
I loved the Veteran trait.
Let me try again to explain what I "believe" Longshot is saying: It's the aesthetics that the exact same creature he didn't have trouble with in AD1 is not causing him to expend resources in AD4. In a perfect world we would have an entire set of monsters for each Set to use just for that Set. So in AD2, every monster would be an AD2 monster.
That is not realistic due to the sheer number of cards you would need.
On a side note. I completely agree with redeux HERE
Got you.
Totally in line.