Re: RE: [HoE] Junkman Cometh/Huckster ?

[Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

> > Sure. But the new system doesn't give you a better chance of getting a 
>more
> > powerful manitou (i.e., assure that you draw more cards, improve the
> > strength of the hand you do get).
>
>HoE doesn't seem to be meant to make hucksters cast more
>powerful hexes all the time, though - they have to struggle
>for their power more now than they did in Deadlands.
>That's why they get hit with extra backlash - the manitou
>bite back harder than before.
>

Then what's the balance to the disadvantages provided?  Again, you're 
talking "real-world" (well, real HOE world) logic, rather than "game logic." 
  Why is a HoE Huckster paying the same three points for the AB that a 
Deadlands Huckster is?

If game balance is no longer an issue, and we don't care if Hucksters are 
balanced (or even playable), then great.

>I think I wasn't clear before:-
>The minimum hand is higher; the minimum effect is higher.
>A HoE Pair isn't stronger than a DL Pair, it's just the
>minimum requirement for the hex.
>

The minimum effect is still "no effect."  The current system just increases 
the chances of "no effect" coming up.


>The manitou he has to challenge is more powerful than the
>one that fuels an Ace hex in DL - they don't seem to exist
>anymore.  If his hex works, it has to work on a Pair, which
>is more powerful than an Ace.
>Hands haven't become more powerful than before.
>

Well, that's not quite right.  There are plenty of Hexes that have higher 
minimums than an Ace, so I don't think _all_ of those have ceased to exist

But my point of "logic" (real-world or game) is that if the manitous 
becoming them are more powerful, the hands generated from them should become 
more powerful.  No, the current system does not make that true.  Yes, I 
could rationalize it that way.  No, my rationale may not be as good as 
someone else's.  May not be as bad, either.


>No - I'm saying Ace hexes do not work.  If a hex works, it
>is at least a Pair, which is more powerful than an Ace.
>The minimum hex cast is more powerful in HoE than Deadlands.
>

Again, the minimum hex cast is still "no effect" - the current system merely 
makes that occur more often.

>All hexes must get a minimum hand one rank higher than
>before.  As a result, if a hex works to minimum effect in
>HoE it is more powerful than it is if it works to minimum
>effect in Deadlands.
>
>A Pair is a Pair is a Pair, and it beats an Ace is an Ace
>is an Ace.
>
>So, all hexes cast in HoE with a minimum hand have to be
>stronger in effect than in Deadlands with a minimum hand,
>because they have been cast with a higher poker hand.
>
>The average effect of hexes that have been cast is higher,
>since the minimum hand is higher.  Do hucksters still get
>the shaft?  Yup.  Is it easier to get a more powerful hex?
>Nope.  If you do manage to succeed in a hex, it's going to
>have a more noticable effect than in Deadlands.
>


Well, your method of calculating "averages" strikes me as either flawed, or 
meaningless.  You're increasing the chances that Hexes have no effect (by, 
for Ace-minimum hands, saying Aces are now "no effect" rather than 1 wound, 
3 Bullets, whatever).  "No effect" is an effect you have to take into 
account when calculating successful hexes and their effects as well if you 
want any meaningful "average," IMO.


>But hucksters aren't supposed to be 'better' in HoE.  Why
>should they be?  The manitou hurt more than they did.
>

As a matter of game logic (purely subjective and IMO), they should be better 
because while a manitou is more dangerous, you should get a greater benefit 
from drawing on his (increased) power.  No such benefit currently exists, 
unless you ignore "no effect" benefits of successful hexes and use the 
somewhat distorted averages system you seem to apply above.

As a matter of rules logic, they should not be "better", but they should be 
balanced.  Since the hexes are harder to cast, the place to balance it is in 
the effect generated.  No such balancing occurs.

>He gets a better hand, he's got a better manitou - that's
>how it works.  If he needs a higher hand than before, he
>needs a stronger manitou and gets a stronger effect.  He
>gains the benefit of more powerful manitou in the stronger
>minimum effect , but gets the disadvantage that he hasn't
>got wuss manitou to pul off a wuss hex with.
>

But the "minimum effect" is meaningless.  The lowest minimum effect isn't an 
Ace:  it's "no effect".  The current system increases your chances of 
getting that affect.

A huckster gains no benefit that I can see or that you've mentioned for a 
"stronger minimum effect."  Why is it beneficial to a Huckster to have a 
Pair as the minimum effect for Bodyguard, rather than a Ace?

>Result - hexing is harder than before.  It hurts more than
>before.  If a huckster gets the minimum hand for a hex, it
>works better than before (the old minimum hand) because the
>hand that powers the hex is now higher.
>

It does not "work better than before".  A Pair is a Pair - the effect is the 
same.  All I've lost is the benefit (however minimal) of an Ace.

Again, could you elucidate on what this "benefit" is of not having an Ace as 
a minimum hand requirement?  I'm just not seeing it...

>The huckster doesn't really gain any benefit from more
>powerful manitou - it makes it tougher to hex.  The only
>real benefit (the higher minimum effect for a hex) is
>offset by the increased difficulty of that hex.  Not a real
>benefit, because the hand needed is higher.
>

And again, what is the "benefit" of a higher minimum effect?  If I'm reading 
the above, you're even saying it's not a "real benefit" because the hand 
needed is higher.

>TJC doesn't say 'hexes are better in HoE', does it?  I
>recall it saying hucksters get the shaft quite regularly
>though...
>

You would be correct, which is exactly my point.  As a matter of game logic, 
it doesn't make much sense (although you can rationalize it, I suppose - who 
can't?).  As a matter of rules balance, it is unbalanced to the point of 
unviability.

>Hexes are more difficult.  No argument.
>Manitou are meaner than before.  No argument.
>Hexes are not more powerful than before.  No argument.
>

My arguement is that Hexes _should_ be more powerful in a meaningful sense 
(not just "raising the minimum effect", which seems to provide "no real 
benefit").  Manitous are more powerful.  If you take the penalties for a 
more powerful Manitou, there should be some benefit.  Or you have imbalance. 
  Imbalance means unviability.  Unviability means nobody plays the character 
class.

The current system applies three penalties, and no benefits.


>Ta da!
>
>However, hexes that work at minimum effect in HoE work
>better than hexes at minimum effect in DL.  Yes, it's
>because of the different minimum hand ranks.
>

The minimum effect is meaningless, since the Huckster still goes for the 
best effect possible more often than not.  Again, please explain why is a 
minimum effect of a Pair "better" than a minimum effect of an "Ace"?

>That does show manitou getting meaner.
>It has the side effect that on average, successful hexes in
>HoE are more powerful than successful hexes in DL.

Umm,m no.  Successful hexes can still have a "no effect."  By raising 
minimum hand size, you've increased the number of "no effects" generated.  
Calculate your averages from that.

I don't think you can ignore "no effects" and still cite a meaningful "on 
average" something is or isn't more powerful.

>There are no hexes cast on a hand of Ace, all hexes need a
>hand rank one higher to work.  As a result, the average HoE
>hex is more powerful in effect than in DL, because it uses
>a higher hand rank.  And yes, it is harder to do and
>doesn't happen as often.
>

Even if true, what benefit accrues from the "average HoE hex is more 
powerful in effect"?  See my list of averages I cited, where in 15 hexes you 
went from five Ace-minimum successes to five no-effect successes (which I 
incorreclty listed as Failures).  The average there actually seems to be 
_dropping_.

>That means hucksters aren't as reliant on hexes as before,
>because they can't batter manitou as easily.  If you play
>a huckster, hexing isn't going to dominate your character,
>unlike most DL hucksters.
>
>

Ummm, isn't that the point of playing a Huckster?  And how the system is 
currently built to let you play a Huckster?  Perhaps the revised system will 
change that, but currently the fact you have to build up each Hex's Level 
means it almost has to dominate your character.

To some degree Hucksters and "backup physical stuff" characters are two 
separate entities, since they rely almost entirely on two different sets of 
attributes.  To make a Huckster who relies equally on Soul Blast and a rifle 
is to make, IMO, an unviable character.

(And I'm leery either of citing the new system to come, or of anyone who 
does...).

Basically, the new TJC rules changes Hucksters as we know them, into (at 
best) a lesser creature that _whenever_ they want to cast Hexes suffer a 
good chance of dying/blowing up comrades/whatever.  This won't encourage 
players to build characters of a class that is popular and (until now) 
enjoyable:  it will simply have them create non-Hucksters who focus on the 
non-Huckster stuff they would have given their Hucksters.

(And just as a note, even assuming that the Huckster player is feeling 
doom-ish, why would a Posse want him around, giving the penchant of backlash 
to hit comrades as well?  Don't know about you, but most Posses I've seen 
just barely tolerate a Huckster's backlashes:  I can't imagine a HoE group 
would be any more forgiving of the increased chance of one of them getting 
nailed.)

---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com