Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Gloomhaven» Forums » Rules

Subject: the - 10 +10 rep classes? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel B
Sweden
Umeå
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
what's the deal with them? what happens if we get +10 and open the sun character box? can someone switch to that character whenever they want or something? I know what happens if we unlock it after someone unlocks it prior to hitting rep 10 but fail to see the use of the conditions?


unless there's some special information in sun and moon characters that makes them different from just life goal characters?

(my life goal will open moon character)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
j ribs
msg tools
mb
They are just normal classes you can unlock. Nothing special. Play them when you want.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They're just unlocked. Someone can make that character and start using it if they want to switch. Otherwise, it's another option for the next time somebody retires.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel B
Sweden
Umeå
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
so when someone meet their life goal and is told to unluck character X, they can play with sun or moon instead? if they're unlocked that's it
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
GamerM
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's it. When a player retires a character, their new character doesn't HAVE to be the new class they unlocked. It can be ANY character class that's unlocked and available. They could play the exact same class again and progress it further if they wish.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nelag_macdahmer wrote:
so when someone meet their life goal and is told to unluck character X, they can play with sun or moon instead? if they're unlocked that's it

Yep, that's it.

Example: A 3-man team of Brute, Scoundrel, and Spellweaver.
- They get to +10 reputation and unlock the sun class.

Later, the Scoundrel isn't ready to retire, but decides he's tired of melee so he makes a new character.
- The options are Cragheart, Mindthief, Tinkerer, and the sun class.
- He picks Tinkerer, starting with free levels based on Gloomhaven's prosperity.

Later, the Brute completes his personal goal, retiring and unlocking the tri-force class.
- For his new character, the player can start over with Brute, or take Scoundrel, Cragheart, Mindthief, sun, or tri-force.
- Whichever class he picks, he starts with 1 free perk for having retired 1 character, and free levels based on Gloomhaven's prosperity.

Later, the Spellweaver completes his personal goal, retiring and unlocking the sun class.
- Because the sun class has already been unlocked, he draws 1 random side quest and 1 random item design, and adds them both to the campaign.

I hope that helps illustrate things.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel B
Sweden
Umeå
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thanks!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
nelag_macdahmer wrote:
so when someone meet their life goal and is told to unluck character X, they can play with sun or moon instead? if they're unlocked that's it

Yep, that's it.

Example: A 3-man team of Brute, Scoundrel, and Spellweaver.
- They get to +10 reputation and unlock the sun class.

Later, the Scoundrel isn't ready to retire, but decides he's tired of melee so he makes a new character.
- The options are Cragheart, Mindthief, Tinkerer, and the sun class.
- He picks Tinkerer, starting with free levels based on Gloomhaven's prosperity.

Later, the Brute completes his personal goal, retiring and unlocking the tri-force class.
- For his new character, the player can start over with Brute, or take Scoundrel, Cragheart, Mindthief, sun, or tri-force.
- Whichever class he picks, he starts with 1 free perk for having retired 1 character, and free levels based on Gloomhaven's prosperity.

Later, the Spellweaver completes his personal goal, retiring and unlocking the sun class.
- Because the sun class has already been unlocked, he draws 1 random side quest and 1 random item design, and adds them both to the campaign.

I hope that helps illustrate things.


It's possibly worth adding that the Scoundrel continues to exist, and, provided neither other player is currently playing a Scoundrel, the Tinkerer could switch back for any given scenario, or for a run of scenarios (and should add levels to the Scoundrel as Gloomhaven's prosperity increases, in order to keep the character's level at least as high as the town's prosperity level).

At some point, the Scoundrel/Tinkerer player could retire either character and then play with the other until it also retires before needing to create a new character to continue play - at which point, that new character would start with 2 bonus perks.

In principle, either of the other players could also create a Tinkerer character (before or after retiring their first character) but then they could only play Tinkerer when the Scoundrel/Tinkerer wasn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rmsgrey wrote:
At some point, the Scoundrel/Tinkerer player could retire either character and then play with the other until it also retires before needing to create a new character to continue play - at which point, that new character would start with 2 bonus perks.
The Scoundrel and Tinkerer, while controlled by the same player, are considered separate lineages for the purposes of the bonus perks.

From the FAQ:
aflorin wrote:
Though this effect is applied to players, if one player is controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign (like for solo play, for instance), they should consider each "hand" they control a different player for this bonus
So even after retiring both the Scoundrel and Tinkerer, the new character created would only start with 1 bonus perk. However, that player could create a second character with 1 bonus perk to carry on the second lineage if they so desired.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
masterzora wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
At some point, the Scoundrel/Tinkerer player could retire either character and then play with the other until it also retires before needing to create a new character to continue play - at which point, that new character would start with 2 bonus perks.
The Scoundrel and Tinkerer, while controlled by the same player, are considered separate lineages for the purposes of the bonus perks.

From the FAQ:
aflorin wrote:
Though this effect is applied to players, if one player is controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign (like for solo play, for instance), they should consider each "hand" they control a different player for this bonus
So even after retiring both the Scoundrel and Tinkerer, the new character created would only start with 1 bonus perk. However, that player could create a second character with 1 bonus perk to carry on the second lineage if they so desired.


Are they separate lineages? When I started a thread on the subject, consensus failed to emerge: Lineages and controlling multiple characters

The key question is whether you have to take both characters on the same play of a scenario to count as playing them at the same time, or whether just having both characters exist in the party at the same time counts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
nelag_macdahmer wrote:
so when someone meet their life goal and is told to unluck character X, they can play with sun or moon instead? if they're unlocked that's it


Yup! When I was playing, we didn't share life goals and a friend and I both ended up going for the same class: he got there first. But because we had gotten to +10 rep I could play Sun symbol class when I retired.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as the Scoundrel and the Tinkerer don't play together in the same scenario, they don't need to be separated in lineage. However, since the Tinkerer was created before the scoundrel retired, neither character will ever get a free perk from that lineage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rmsgrey wrote:
The key question is whether you have to take both characters on the same play of a scenario to count as playing them at the same time, or whether just having both characters exist in the party at the same time counts.


hooliganj wrote:
As long as the Scoundrel and the Tinkerer don't play together in the same scenario, they don't need to be separated in lineage. However, since the Tinkerer was created before the scoundrel retired, neither character will ever get a free perk from that lineage.
The wording is rather clear. It refers to a player controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign, not merely to controlling multiple characters at once in a scenario. An official clarification would be nice given that there's some confusion here, but that hypothetical player is clearly controlling both the Scoundrel and the Tinkerer at the same time in the campaign but not in the same scenario.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
masterzora wrote:
The wording is rather clear. It refers to a player controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign, not merely to controlling multiple characters at once in a scenario. An official clarification would be nice given that there's some confusion here, but that hypothetical player is clearly controlling both the Scoundrel and the Tinkerer at the same time in the campaign but not in the same scenario.

The wording is rather clear. It refers to a player controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign. If the player puts the Scoundrel back in the box, creates a Tinkerer, and never has the 2 characters active at the same time, then he hasn't controlled multiple characters at once, and there's no reason to split them up.

But if you want to read the rules differently, that's up to you. It's a co-op game, after all - play what's fun for you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
The wording is rather clear. It refers to a player controlling multiple characters at once in a campaign. If the player puts the Scoundrel back in the box, creates a Tinkerer, and never has the 2 characters active at the same time, then he hasn't controlled multiple characters at once, and there's no reason to split them up.
But he is controlling them at once in the campaign, just not in the scenario. Unless you mean to suggest that a different player is free to decide that the Scoundrel is selling all items back to the market without the first player's permission just because the first player wants to use the Tinkerer today.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
masterzora wrote:
But he is controlling them at once in the campaign, just not in the scenario. Unless you mean to suggest that a different player is free to decide that the Scoundrel is selling all items back to the market without the first player's permission just because the first player wants to use the Tinkerer today.

I mean to suggest that the player who created both characters isn't using both of them at the same time, so there's no reason to pretend that he is, or apply rules that are obviously created for solo players who play through a scenario with 2 (or more) characters at a time.

Is the argument against this seriously that petty? "Since the other players can't take that character's stuff, there must be a penalty for it!" Staaaahp.

Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine if the Spellweaver retired, and just took over the Scoundrel (assuming that player is okay with it), rather than starting a brand new one. There's no rules supporting that at all, but it is beyond pointless to bicker about it. Enjoy the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
Is the argument against this seriously that petty? "Since the other players can't take that character's stuff, there must be a penalty for it!" Staaaahp.
No, the argument is "the player clearly is the one controlling the character" using "other players can't take that character's stuff" as evidence of this fact.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
masterzora wrote:
hooliganj wrote:
Is the argument against this seriously that petty? "Since the other players can't take that character's stuff, there must be a penalty for it!" Staaaahp.
No, the argument is "the player clearly is the one controlling the character" using "other players can't take that character's stuff" as evidence of this fact.


The argument shows that no other player is controlling the Scoundrel, but doesn't show that there is anyone controlling the Scoundrel. After the Brute retires, none of the players other than the Tinkerer's player can make any decisions for the Brute either (nor can the Tinkerer's player) so clearly the Tinkerer's player must also be the one controlling all retired characters.

When the argument is "currently no-one controls the Scoundrel", saying "neither the Brute player nor the Spellweaver player controls the Scoundrel" isn't a counter-argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I interpret "controlling" as "actively playing." I have a Cragheart and a Scoundrel. When I'm playing as my Cragheart, I'm not controlling my Scoundrel. She's sitting in the box, not being controlled (played).

I think I said it in the other thread, but the intent of the lineage rule is to make it so a solo player controlling two or more characters does not have extra perk bonuses compared to a group of players controlling the same number of characters. If one player has two characters but only ever plays one at a time, both until retirement, that's not any different (theoretically) than playing one character until retirement, starting a second character and playing it until retirement.

For a lot of personal goals, it will take roughly 10-20 scenarios to complete them. Let's say it's an average of 15 scenarios. If a player has two characters and he switches between them regularly, he will retire both of them after playing his 30th scenario. If that same player instead played one character exclusively until retirement, then played another exclusively until retirement, he would have retired both after playing his 30th scenario. I don't see why that player should be penalized perk-wise for having done the same amount of "work" over the same period of time, but just alternating.

That said, the "theoretically" two paragraphs up is because of the caveat for certain personal goals. If your personal goal says something like "Complete two scenarios in the Hot Steppes, then play Scenario 185" you could create a second character, never play it until those scenarios come up, only play it three times, and then retire it. That seems like an abuse to me, but as long as you're aware not to do stuff like that, I don't think it harms the central idea of playing two characters non-simultaneously.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rmsgrey wrote:
The argument shows that no other player is controlling the Scoundrel, but doesn't show that there is anyone controlling the Scoundrel. After the Brute retires, none of the players other than the Tinkerer's player can make any decisions for the Brute either (nor can the Tinkerer's player) so clearly the Tinkerer's player must also be the one controlling all retired characters.
I assumed the implicit other half of the argument was clear. The Tinkerer's player also cannot make decisions for the retired characters, so they are clearly not controlling them. The Tinkerer's player can, however, make decisions for the Scoundrel. As the unique player in that position, they are controlling the Scoundrel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter345 wrote:
I interpret "controlling" as "actively playing."
Again, this is the difference between controlling them at the same time in a scenario, and the actual statement of controlling them at the same time in a campaign.

Dexter345 wrote:
I don't see why that player should be penalized perk-wise for having done the same amount of "work" over the same period of time, but just alternating.
They're not penalised. That player still has the same number of bonus perks available as the other players. They're just split between two lineages rather than being part of the same lineage.

Dexter345 wrote:
That said, the "theoretically" two paragraphs up is because of the caveat for certain personal goals.
You say "certain personal goals". Without getting too spoiler-y here, of the 24 personal quests, I count 13 that can only be progressed in a subset of scenarios. Of the remaining 11, most are significantly easier or significantly harder to progress with some scenarios, are partially or entirely based on timing, and/or may be unable to be progressed in some scenarios depending on party decisions. Of course, not every pairing of personal quest can be significantly sped up by switching between characters, but I most pairings can, depending on the campaign state.

Dexter345 wrote:
you could create a second character, never play it until those scenarios come up, only play it three times, and then retire it. That seems like an abuse to me, but as long as you're aware not to do stuff like that, I don't think it harms the central idea of playing two characters non-simultaneously.
I agree, that is particularly abusive regardless of the rule. However, you don't have to be that extreme or intentionally abusive to have a significant impact on the rate of retirement. I think it's fair to say that if a given scenario would help one character A's personal quest but not character B's personal quest that players would generally choose to take A instead of B to that scenario unless they're trying to put off retirement. Even if they're switching between the characters roughly evenly in scenarios that don't help either quest or help either quest roughly equally well, that will tend to non-trivially decrease the average number of scenarios required for that player. Not as ridiculously as going from an average of 15 scenarios to only needing 3, but I'd reckon something like going from an average of 15 to an average of 10, outside those few personal quests that inherently require more.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ftl ftw
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
masterzora wrote:

Dexter345 wrote:
I don't see why that player should be penalized perk-wise for having done the same amount of "work" over the same period of time, but just alternating.
They're not penalised. That player still has the same number of bonus perks available as the other players. They're just split between two lineages rather than being part of the same lineage.


No, they've got fewer. Here's an example.

Version 1: Player plays scoundrel (no perks), retires scoundrel and creates mindthief (1 perk), retires mindthief creates brute (2 starting perks).

Version 2: Player plays scoundrel (no perks), starts playing mindthief before retiring scoundrel (no perks), retires mindthief, goes back to playing scoundrel and retires scoundrel, creates brute (1 starting perk, regardless of what lineage it's from)

Both versions the player has played and retired two characters. But in the first version, when they play two characters sequentially, their third character gets 2 starting perks; but in the second version, when they alternate which character they play in which scenario, their third character only gets 1 starting perk.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ftl_ftw wrote:
Version 2: Player plays scoundrel (no perks), starts playing mindthief before retiring scoundrel (no perks), retires mindthief, goes back to playing scoundrel and retires scoundrel, creates brute (1 starting perk, regardless of what lineage it's from)


I think what Zora is saying is that in this situation, that same player could then go on and create a fourth character that starts with 1 perk, where the player in Version 1 would have no starting perks on a fourth character created at the same time as the Brute.

That said, it's still limiting for someone who has two characters but plays one character at a time. They're earning perks at half the rate per character, which is the metric that actually matters since only one character sees action at any time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Sauro
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter345 wrote:
That said, it's still limiting for someone who has two characters but plays one character at a time. They're earning perks at half the rate per character, which is the metric that actually matters since only one character sees action at any time.
They're earning everything at half the rate per character. XP (well, assuming both characters stay ahead of the prosperity curve), gold, other perks, etc. That's what happens when you split between two characters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
And if you compare alternating guy with the guy who has two characters and plays both in every scenario, when alternating guy creates his third and fourth characters, the other guy will be retiring his third and fourth characters to create his fifth and sixth characters with 2 perks each.

Smarter character selection (for personal goal completion) getting 10 scenarios to 15 normally would reduce the advantage of playing simultaneously fairly significantly - as switching guy retires #5 and #6 in that model, the other guy is retiring #7 and #8.

So which seems fairer depends on how much of an advantage in time to retirement you think the player is getting from switching between characters.

But all of this is fairly academic anyway - we're arguing what the rule "ought to be" not what the rule "is" because the official rule is ambiguous in this sort of scenario.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.