Reading over the V8 rules and trying to digest the changes, most of them seem fine or at worst are just personal “my character got nerffed” disappointments.
But the one that has been bugging me all day is the removal of the “firm” hold rating, which, as a result, means there is no way to tier up without becoming VERY likely to be knocked down a tier (and remaining weak at that). This is ESPECIALLY brutal when combined with the rep tracker becoming longer and increased tax to tier up.
The Shepherds have increased their hold (on the old scale) twice by now, but have gone to war they same number of times. We pull down all sorts of heat and ire of enemies because we’re ambitious up and comers and that’s what it takes to get a foothold.
But, with the current rules as written, as soon as we tier up (which we’re pretty close to doing), the only way to not lose our massive investment of several scores worth of rep and coin that we put into that, is to turtle up. Not risking pissing anyone off so they declare war on us until we get 12 minus turf rep and can be strong again. Not to mention just being forced to take any abuse entanglement gives us instead of actually being able to fight back.
I don’t know, maybe that you are supposed to be really scared of losing your tier right after you rank up, and that’s exactly the point of the change, but it seems kinda contrary to the bold risk-taking the game seems to be about.
In my experience losing hold is super rare via normal means, though I do admit that the peculiar way the war rules interact with the hold rules makes you very vulnerable when you’re weak, since as I understand it, if you’re weak and go to war, you lose a tier and remain weak, then advance to strong at the lower tier when the war ends — is that honestly intentional? I understand if going to war when you’re at weak hold is something to be avoided, but should it really be an automatic loss of tier that you just paid a whole lot of coin for?
Yeah, I don’t think I made that quite clear enough in my OP, but war was my primary concern, especially cause a bad roll on entanglement could read “lose a tier and go to war, or lose a claim” whenever you are weak, which is about 50% of the time.
Losing a hold via other means generally means you’ve messed up really bad. War (at least as we’ve been playing) it, is just something that happens. Trying to avoid it because of that huge investment you’ve just made means you have to play pushovers and try to placate anyone who wants anything from you right at exactly the same time you are supposed to have moved up in the world.
📌
I think the confusion / issue is that the lost of hold only lasts as long as the war is going. Once the war is resolved the crew (if not destroyed) gets it back.
From page 45: When a faction is at war (see page 46), it temporarily loses 1 hold.
Rising up in Tier is really tough. It’s faaaaar from a sure thing in the fictional world of Duskwall. In most RPGs, you take it for granted that you’re supposed to advance, level by level, like clockwork — sure, there are fights and it’s “hard” — but development is pretty much a given.
Tier development isn’t really like that. It’s super unfair and will end up costing you, again and again. It’s not a given, and not a “natural” consequence of playing Blades.
If you don’t want your game of Blades to be that brutal, you can tweak it so holding on to Tier is easier. But my design goal for several parts of the game was to heavily stack things against the prospects of the crew (and balance that by making the PCs very effective people).
Sean Nittner Sure the hold loss is temporary, but, I read RAW the same way Nihzlet​ describes it above, that a weak tier X who goes to war ends up as a strong tier X-1 after the war is over (assuming X isn’t 0).
John Harper​ Thanks for the explanation, I can see the reasoning behind the changes.
I’m curious how you see a successful transition going from tiering up to getting to strong hold in the new tier. I see it as a lot of placating, not fighting back when someone messes with you, and generally avoiding a lot of risk Since, you can’t go to war with someone and make it there. And if you roll reprisals or show of force, you are basically at the other factions’ mercy, so on scores you better be very careful not to draw heat.
I donno, maybe my group is just playing pink Mohawk Blades, and you are actually going for something more black trench coat. But what you have to do to get from weak to strong seems contrary to the play advice in the book.
It’s one thing when I am simply causing trouble (and new story opportunities) for the group by spitting in the crime boss’ face. And another because I am blowing 24 coin and several jobs worth of rep we just spent to get to tier 3
I think that if you are ending up at war often, you are doing something weird. There is a faction status tracker for a reason- you can snub people, piss them off, and not go to war.
Ah, Kyle Greene and Nihzlet, I see what you’re saying. We’ve should clarify (this will be up to John).
If you succeed in an operation to reduce a faction’s hold and they go from say Tier II weak to Tier I weak, that is permanent. Seems pretty clear.
If you are at war, and you lose one hold temporarily there are two open questions:
1. Does it follow the same rules as losing hold from an operation (i.e. that if you are weak, you drop to the next lower tier, still weak)?
2. When the war is over, do you gain back ALL of the hold that was temporarily lost? I.e. back to your original status. (assuming you didn’t lose the war and as cost of that lose permanent hold as part of the game)
My suspicion (though I’ll vet this by John) is that the answer to both is yes. If you’re Tier II weak and you go to war you’re temporarily Tier I weak, but at the end of the war (again, assuming you did okay in it), you jump back to Tier II weak. I’ll yack at John a bit offline, clarify, and then if needed we can tweak the text to make it more clear.
Yeah, that’s a bit unclear, but I think the answer to both should be yes.
Kyle Greene​​ I hear what you’re saying, but it sounds hypothetical to me. I mean, it’s a reasonable concern given a reading of the mechanic, but it doesn’t happen that way in play.
For one thing, wars can be avoided, usually. If you always go to war and refuse to negotiate out of them, your crew is going to have a very hard time moving up in the underworld hierarchy, it’s true. You can try to do it by simply destroying your enemies instead, but it will be a long and costly road. See Marlo’s journey on The Wire, for example.
Anyway, I’ll go through the “lose temporary hold” language in the book regarding war and make sure it’s saying what I intend it to. Thanks for bringing this up.
Sean Nittner and John Harper thanks for the clarification, question 2 is what I was unclear on. 🙂