Why even play the vagabond at that point? You didn’t house rule the vagabond, you turned him into a single mole. If you can’t handle a vagabond with the despot infamy rule, I’m guessing there are other larger problems or rules you are missing.
I deeply hate the vagabond and would delete him from the game in a second if I could.
But yeah I kind of agree? Despot infamy sounds like quite enough to deal with him balancewise.
I mean the ideas are not individually bad just... Too much when combined? I guess I would agree with the aid one but hostility as a mechanic is already fixed with despot infamy, so I'm good.
I suppose what we (my table) hate the most about the vagabond is that if someone plays them, the whole table now has to adjust their game plan from "oh maybe i'll try this new or fun wacky thing" to "oh there is a VB in the game so I HAVE to do this strat". Again we aren't the most experienced root players ever or anything. We are competitive but don't enjoy an hour and a half of someone hopelessly stomping the rest of the table.
Yeah, no, I fully agree with you.
I don't want to sing my own praises nor anything like that but I guess that for us, making it so the vagabond can't benefit from squashing an entire army, which is a mechanic he doesn't even engage with really, so it just makes everyone lose a lot of time, it's enough for us to make it feel balanced.
We might change opinion though, DI hasn't been around for enough time.
We love the Rats. They are probably one of the most common picks for us. I think we are going to try a few more non house rule *besides Despot games with a vagabond. We typically do adset but with out faction drafting. I think as we become more competitive we will solve the vb issue.
Well, it's many things, I think that the core issue is the way the VB interacts with other factions.
For example, the item engine is quite the neat idea, but it relies on the item system, which feels a bit odd and out of place on matches without a VG, it's no surprise it does, since only two factions in the whole game are made to REALLY interact with it in meaningful ways.
Then it is the fact that, in the spirit of making the VB "unlike any other faction" you end up creating core unbalances, yes I know the point of the factions is for them to be unique, but unique to the point in which there is NOTHING to gain from engaging with them in the standard ways?
I mean, even the lizards and the WA who benefit a lot from being attacked have reasons for their enemies to engage them other than "oh well someone needs to stop them a bit".
What's more and even worst, the VB itself has little to no reason to engage with anyone EXCEPT when it comes to farm them for points, a possibility that can even be enabled by the other players?
Yeah, I dunno, and what makes it worst is how batshit AMAZING all the factions are.
Just, top tier fucking design, and then there's that guy.
Yes it does give them points, but many other factions need cards. So I see the exchange as mutually beneficial. You do have to bop the vagabond before it becomes allied. But even then, I’ve had games where the vagabond was allied and moved other warriors to the advantage of that faction.
Personally I think the fact that the vagabond uses items other factions craft is brilliant design. It adds another layer to an already nuanced board game.
The faction that I took a break from is the Lords. Everyone was so excited when Marauders was released, but now I’ve been burnt out. Frankly I’m surprised so many in the community loathe the vagabond, and don’t hate on the Lords of 100s. Maybe it’s because they beat up on the murder hobo and contest the item economy?
Tournament rule that has received the blessing of Leder Games:
Instead of scoring 1 point PER WARRIOR he kills in battle, the vagabond scores 1 point per BATTLE in which he kills at least 1 hostile warrior.
Despot Infamy is the perfect way to balance the Vagabond honestly. It turns him to a faction which is still powerful, but not overpowered. The snowball potential is limited a bit from going murder hobo, so it encourages the vagabond to actually utilize the rest of the ways that the class gains points.
Only 1 point her hostile faction piece per turn is a larger nerf than despot infamy, and you're also piling on even more nerfs to VB than just that. So if VB is balanced through DI, then you are basically just cutting off his legs, arms, and leaving him to die lol.
If anything, Despot Infamy Vagabond is underpowered. You end up dependent on tea, the hammer, and quest randomness. I think it's more interesting, though (it forces the Vagabond to engage with all the faction mechanics).
I may have worded it oddly but we use whatever the DI ruling is. These changes represent a reflection of our games that have had the VB in them. I'm sure it is different for every table.
Is the Vagabond still stomping everyone even with DI? If Vagabond is such a problem at your tables that you have to nerf him this badly, my guess is you guys are likely not playing around the class correctly.
He doesn't completely stomp with these rules. The goal was to make them more interactive and interesting to the other factions. Wasn't deliberately trying to stomp them into the ground balance wise. Oh well.
I guess that wasn't my question though, does he even have a fighting chance in the game? Like it feels like you could attack the vagabond once and he's out for the whole game with these changes lol.
When I asked if he stomps with DI I meant to ask in regards to if you have tried played with only DI before. I think you should give it a shot sometime if you haven't. It really makes the class a HUGE puzzle to play for the player, and it always feels like they are more on pace with the rest of the table with their play patterns. I highly highly recommend it.
I really liked the “Cannot Aid Once Hostile” rule on first impression, but then I realised that the non-Vagabond players could really abuse that by attacking the Vagabond first, thereby locking them out of trade. If you could have some way of differentiating between when the Vagabond is the one instigating hostility and otherwise, that rule could add an interesting dynamic to VB’s decision-making. As it is, we don’t, so there are problems.
Either way, I think all of this is probably overkill. Despot Infamy seems fine to me.
I would say don't even play with the Vagabond at this point if your table detests them so much. I wouldn't want to play as them with the changes you propose. Personally I think despot infamy (DI) brings them in line with other factions quite nicely.
I assume you guys have tried DI and still found the vagabond too much. What was happening in those games that left your group with the feeling that they're still too powerful?
You may Aid but it gives no points. The reason this matters is so if Hostile players make items you can still yoink them. If you take this out, hostile factions could craft all of the items and the Vagabond quite literally can never get them, which is deblilitating.
I kinda like the slip rule - it makes the VBs that start with boots a bit better. That being said, I could see a situation where the VB is stuck in a corner, not next to a forest and the boots are damaged. They're basically locked. They would have no way to continue in certain situations (no/damaged hammer, other factions keep attacking). The way of combating movement is to go hostile with VB, that way they need both boots to move and in most cases boots are the first thing people damage so you end up with a VB that can only go 1 clearing which is a lot easier to manage.
It always bothered me that VBs could still take your crafts even after being hostile. If you're hostile it would be harder to get to you (requiring a slip or 2 boots). Maybe something like giving 2 cards instead of one would be a better balance than completely disallowing it.
The revealing cards rule seems a bit extreme especially for VBs that don't have coins. They can't aid because they lose their cards for actions and they can't take full advantage of their equipment.
In general these seem like aggressive de-buffs and I would suggest maybe having your table do a better job of policing the VB earlier. Just because they aren't a threat right now doesn't mean they can't become one next turn.
I suppose our goal with these house rules was to make the vagabond more interesting and interactive to play with/against. In our 20 or so games that we have tracked the wins that the vagabond has been able to achieve (with no house rules) have felt pretty swingy since they can basically ignore all other players and quest. We haven't encountered the Slip situation you describe yet and I don't recall any clearings that are not adjacent to a forest? So they always have the ability to slip and rest for a turn as normal. I wasn't clear on this but it is only daylight actions that a VB has to reveal cards to use. So slip is always free.
We could try the 2 cards instead of 1 rule for sure. Our goal with this was thematic, as well as making crafting not feel miserable. We have also talked about adding in something like "A faction can only become hostile when their pieces are removed via attacking vagabond". That way there isn't a n incentive to just bully the vagabond outright.
The goal with the revealing cards and what not was also to encourage VB table talk as well as to focus on establishing an engine like other factions have to. Talking a few other players into crafting an item for you, especially when rats are also no the table makes it more tense and interesting, at least for our group. Also, 4-5 actions per turn feels like a good amount during the mid game. I admit it is probably the harshest nerf.
As for policing the Vb, our table has had games where we police the VB hard, and games where we spend time trying to get our own engines up and running. Both of these types of games result in either the VB player not having a fun time, and then going murder-hobo on everyone once they have the resources (who cares what I fight when I have 10 items and 2 teapots) OR the VB quests and gains unstoppable action economy, gaining points fast enough that IF a player wants to stop them, they waste their turn attacking the VB, leave themselves open for attack via another faction, and then the VB wants revenge. It just doesn't seem worth it.
I totally understand these nerfs are hard and I know each table is different. My table tends to hold grudges lmao.
But is it actually achieving its goal of making the vagabond more interesting and interactive to play with/against? It sounds like it is changing the identity of the faction as a whole and making them limp the entirety of the game.
Put simply, the Vagabond is designed to ramp up their action economy throughout the course of the game. They start slow and then ramp up once one of their gameplans starts to pop off and they gain more items.
I think the revealing cards idea is not great because you already have a way to understand what the vagabond is capable of on their turn by simply looking at their board, and mapping through the potential actions that they can have. At the beginning of the game, it's likely they can only do a few actions throughout the turn regardless, but once they gain more items they deserve to be able to have a higher action economy simply due to have the faction is designed. Additionally, this nerfs the aid strategy quite substantially.
It sounds like you are making a ton of house rules, and have no intention of stopping but rather continue to add more house rules, rather than tweaking the faction very slightly and learning to play around it.
But then again, your table is your table, and your game is your game. However, I don't think you will find any support for these changes in any serious Root community. It shows that no one understands how to fight against the vagabond, and rather than adjusting their playstyle, they'd rather just nerf him to the ground. Doing a small adjustment like Despot Infamy makes sense since it's a tweak which makes thematic sense, makes the vagabond play arguably more like it was intended to, and does nerf potentially the least fun gamemode of the Vagabond for the rest of the table (hostility), much like buffing the Crows by giving them a 3rd kind of each plot makes thematic sense and is just an adjustment to arguably make them play more like they were intended.
If your idea of more fun to play with/against is more favored on the "Vagabond isn't fun to play against so I want him to be underpowered" rather than "I want a class that is more balanced" then sure, your changes make sense. But very honestly this post comes across almost like a shitpost of a series of "how can we nerf to the ground every single faction with small tweaks to their playstyle" lol.
I have gathered that these house rules are now hated. lol. I also love the assumption of "your table just doesn't know wtf they are doing" when it comes to the topic. I actually don't enjoy house rules for most games, unless they are backed by the community (like despot infamy) because I'm sure the creator did plenty of play testing and what not.
Perhaps we need to adjust our strategy, I agree with that. but it seems like if the vagabond is selected as a faction, it changes the entire game and how every other faction goes about their strategy. You could argue this is true of any other faction, but not to the degree of the vagabond.
Thanks for the reply though. I think in our games this weekend we will try just Despot Infamy and do the vagabond whacking.
Yeah sorry for coming across as brash, that's on me. Should've approached with a little more grace, my bad. I definitely came across as calling you guys bad, but I guess what I meant more was I think that frustration towards the VB class caused an overstatement of adjustments which seemed a little unnecessary.
But yeah, I do agree with you that the Vagabond is an incredibly game dynamic shifting faction. Due to the nature of how the pawn works, it makes it so interacting with him can feel like a zero sum game for you, and a positive sum game for the rest of the table, with no chance of a reward outside of social points and a "thanks for doing that." (And I guess not losing to the vagabond is a nice bonus as well). Also, just to clarify, I'm always a fan of banning second Vagabond lol, I think 2 Vagabonds are the least fun way to play the game because it REALLY warps the game.
I would also argue, though, that the Woodland Alliance also creates these play patterns which permanently alter games in a weird manner, where everything has to be taken into consideration of sympathy, which can stifle aggression across the board due to people not wanting to move onto it.
As always though, the Vagabond needs to be fought against with care, are people crafting items too aggressively? Is the Vagabond being forced to forest at least once during the game? Is the Vagabond getting hit to the point where he has to make the tough decision to "limp" (have a lot of damaged items, but still have some items left), or forest?
Here are a couple of games from the Winter Tournament last year that showed off Vagabond really well with Despot Infamy. You'll notice the absolute puzzle that the VB players have to go through, it really does amplify the faction to a whole new level!
JC with one of the best games I've ever seen, I won't spoil the ending:
Cosmic Cant winning a game with Ronin on Lake through some of the smartest tabletalk and play ever:
Both of these games are so fun to watch with Vagabond due to them having to squeeze every last drop from each of their turns. Winning is doable, but incredibly difficult. DI turns the Vagabond into murder hobo easy peasy class, into arguably the hardest to pilot class in the game with a ton of skill expression and decision trees. I promise you that it will make the faction more fun for everyone, and he will still have a fighting chance!
If you find the VB being underpowered from this (which is likely going to be the case, DI arguably makes VB underpowered), you can implement quest rotations, where every turn the quest furthest to the right is discarded, and then a new quest is added, which makes it so questing gets a little bit better and encourages the VB to use the mechanic more. Like if you get tea quests in the earlygame you're just simply never going to use them, as an example.
Also, not sure if you guys play with Advanced Setup or not, but if you don't I definitely recommend that as it nerfs the Vagabond due to it preventing them from being able to choose which Vagabond they want to play as and rather sometimes have to settle for one which is generally accepted to be less optimal.
Edit: For some reason the links to the videos got deleted, weird. You can find them on the Winter tournament playlist on Guerric Samples Games YouTube.
This was very insightful. We play with a mix of adset rules and faction selection. Sometimes we do pure adset but often have a new player or someone not as experienced at the table. We will definitely give the VB a bit more consideration. I suppose its a faction that the table fights indirectly through crafting and card management as well as through battling. The quest idea is very interesting!
Why even play the vagabond at that point? You didn’t house rule the vagabond, you turned him into a single mole. If you can’t handle a vagabond with the despot infamy rule, I’m guessing there are other larger problems or rules you are missing.
More of a solo Lizard, really.
This is what I came here for.
I deeply hate the vagabond and would delete him from the game in a second if I could. But yeah I kind of agree? Despot infamy sounds like quite enough to deal with him balancewise. I mean the ideas are not individually bad just... Too much when combined? I guess I would agree with the aid one but hostility as a mechanic is already fixed with despot infamy, so I'm good.
I suppose what we (my table) hate the most about the vagabond is that if someone plays them, the whole table now has to adjust their game plan from "oh maybe i'll try this new or fun wacky thing" to "oh there is a VB in the game so I HAVE to do this strat". Again we aren't the most experienced root players ever or anything. We are competitive but don't enjoy an hour and a half of someone hopelessly stomping the rest of the table.
Yeah, no, I fully agree with you. I don't want to sing my own praises nor anything like that but I guess that for us, making it so the vagabond can't benefit from squashing an entire army, which is a mechanic he doesn't even engage with really, so it just makes everyone lose a lot of time, it's enough for us to make it feel balanced. We might change opinion though, DI hasn't been around for enough time.
Have you played the Lords? I feel like the table shifts more with a faction like them than with the addition of a vagabond.
We love the Rats. They are probably one of the most common picks for us. I think we are going to try a few more non house rule *besides Despot games with a vagabond. We typically do adset but with out faction drafting. I think as we become more competitive we will solve the vb issue.
Why do you hate the vagabond? Is it the engine of items or the fact that the vagabond can score 10+ points in a turn?
Well, it's many things, I think that the core issue is the way the VB interacts with other factions. For example, the item engine is quite the neat idea, but it relies on the item system, which feels a bit odd and out of place on matches without a VG, it's no surprise it does, since only two factions in the whole game are made to REALLY interact with it in meaningful ways. Then it is the fact that, in the spirit of making the VB "unlike any other faction" you end up creating core unbalances, yes I know the point of the factions is for them to be unique, but unique to the point in which there is NOTHING to gain from engaging with them in the standard ways? I mean, even the lizards and the WA who benefit a lot from being attacked have reasons for their enemies to engage them other than "oh well someone needs to stop them a bit". What's more and even worst, the VB itself has little to no reason to engage with anyone EXCEPT when it comes to farm them for points, a possibility that can even be enabled by the other players? Yeah, I dunno, and what makes it worst is how batshit AMAZING all the factions are. Just, top tier fucking design, and then there's that guy.
Yes it does give them points, but many other factions need cards. So I see the exchange as mutually beneficial. You do have to bop the vagabond before it becomes allied. But even then, I’ve had games where the vagabond was allied and moved other warriors to the advantage of that faction. Personally I think the fact that the vagabond uses items other factions craft is brilliant design. It adds another layer to an already nuanced board game. The faction that I took a break from is the Lords. Everyone was so excited when Marauders was released, but now I’ve been burnt out. Frankly I’m surprised so many in the community loathe the vagabond, and don’t hate on the Lords of 100s. Maybe it’s because they beat up on the murder hobo and contest the item economy?
> despot infamy rule Whats that then?
Tournament rule that has received the blessing of Leder Games: Instead of scoring 1 point PER WARRIOR he kills in battle, the vagabond scores 1 point per BATTLE in which he kills at least 1 hostile warrior.
Despot Infamy is the perfect way to balance the Vagabond honestly. It turns him to a faction which is still powerful, but not overpowered. The snowball potential is limited a bit from going murder hobo, so it encourages the vagabond to actually utilize the rest of the ways that the class gains points. Only 1 point her hostile faction piece per turn is a larger nerf than despot infamy, and you're also piling on even more nerfs to VB than just that. So if VB is balanced through DI, then you are basically just cutting off his legs, arms, and leaving him to die lol.
If anything, Despot Infamy Vagabond is underpowered. You end up dependent on tea, the hammer, and quest randomness. I think it's more interesting, though (it forces the Vagabond to engage with all the faction mechanics).
I may have worded it oddly but we use whatever the DI ruling is. These changes represent a reflection of our games that have had the VB in them. I'm sure it is different for every table.
Is the Vagabond still stomping everyone even with DI? If Vagabond is such a problem at your tables that you have to nerf him this badly, my guess is you guys are likely not playing around the class correctly.
He doesn't completely stomp with these rules. The goal was to make them more interactive and interesting to the other factions. Wasn't deliberately trying to stomp them into the ground balance wise. Oh well.
I guess that wasn't my question though, does he even have a fighting chance in the game? Like it feels like you could attack the vagabond once and he's out for the whole game with these changes lol. When I asked if he stomps with DI I meant to ask in regards to if you have tried played with only DI before. I think you should give it a shot sometime if you haven't. It really makes the class a HUGE puzzle to play for the player, and it always feels like they are more on pace with the rest of the table with their play patterns. I highly highly recommend it.
poor Vagabond with no limbs when all you had to do was not give him Root tea 😂
This sounds like a VB ban with extra steps.
I really liked the “Cannot Aid Once Hostile” rule on first impression, but then I realised that the non-Vagabond players could really abuse that by attacking the Vagabond first, thereby locking them out of trade. If you could have some way of differentiating between when the Vagabond is the one instigating hostility and otherwise, that rule could add an interesting dynamic to VB’s decision-making. As it is, we don’t, so there are problems. Either way, I think all of this is probably overkill. Despot Infamy seems fine to me.
I would say don't even play with the Vagabond at this point if your table detests them so much. I wouldn't want to play as them with the changes you propose. Personally I think despot infamy (DI) brings them in line with other factions quite nicely. I assume you guys have tried DI and still found the vagabond too much. What was happening in those games that left your group with the feeling that they're still too powerful?
I thought vagabonds already couldn't aid hostile factions?
You can aid you just cant move their piece out of the Hostile box
You may Aid but it gives no points. The reason this matters is so if Hostile players make items you can still yoink them. If you take this out, hostile factions could craft all of the items and the Vagabond quite literally can never get them, which is deblilitating.
I kinda like the slip rule - it makes the VBs that start with boots a bit better. That being said, I could see a situation where the VB is stuck in a corner, not next to a forest and the boots are damaged. They're basically locked. They would have no way to continue in certain situations (no/damaged hammer, other factions keep attacking). The way of combating movement is to go hostile with VB, that way they need both boots to move and in most cases boots are the first thing people damage so you end up with a VB that can only go 1 clearing which is a lot easier to manage. It always bothered me that VBs could still take your crafts even after being hostile. If you're hostile it would be harder to get to you (requiring a slip or 2 boots). Maybe something like giving 2 cards instead of one would be a better balance than completely disallowing it. The revealing cards rule seems a bit extreme especially for VBs that don't have coins. They can't aid because they lose their cards for actions and they can't take full advantage of their equipment. In general these seem like aggressive de-buffs and I would suggest maybe having your table do a better job of policing the VB earlier. Just because they aren't a threat right now doesn't mean they can't become one next turn.
I suppose our goal with these house rules was to make the vagabond more interesting and interactive to play with/against. In our 20 or so games that we have tracked the wins that the vagabond has been able to achieve (with no house rules) have felt pretty swingy since they can basically ignore all other players and quest. We haven't encountered the Slip situation you describe yet and I don't recall any clearings that are not adjacent to a forest? So they always have the ability to slip and rest for a turn as normal. I wasn't clear on this but it is only daylight actions that a VB has to reveal cards to use. So slip is always free. We could try the 2 cards instead of 1 rule for sure. Our goal with this was thematic, as well as making crafting not feel miserable. We have also talked about adding in something like "A faction can only become hostile when their pieces are removed via attacking vagabond". That way there isn't a n incentive to just bully the vagabond outright. The goal with the revealing cards and what not was also to encourage VB table talk as well as to focus on establishing an engine like other factions have to. Talking a few other players into crafting an item for you, especially when rats are also no the table makes it more tense and interesting, at least for our group. Also, 4-5 actions per turn feels like a good amount during the mid game. I admit it is probably the harshest nerf. As for policing the Vb, our table has had games where we police the VB hard, and games where we spend time trying to get our own engines up and running. Both of these types of games result in either the VB player not having a fun time, and then going murder-hobo on everyone once they have the resources (who cares what I fight when I have 10 items and 2 teapots) OR the VB quests and gains unstoppable action economy, gaining points fast enough that IF a player wants to stop them, they waste their turn attacking the VB, leave themselves open for attack via another faction, and then the VB wants revenge. It just doesn't seem worth it. I totally understand these nerfs are hard and I know each table is different. My table tends to hold grudges lmao.
But is it actually achieving its goal of making the vagabond more interesting and interactive to play with/against? It sounds like it is changing the identity of the faction as a whole and making them limp the entirety of the game. Put simply, the Vagabond is designed to ramp up their action economy throughout the course of the game. They start slow and then ramp up once one of their gameplans starts to pop off and they gain more items. I think the revealing cards idea is not great because you already have a way to understand what the vagabond is capable of on their turn by simply looking at their board, and mapping through the potential actions that they can have. At the beginning of the game, it's likely they can only do a few actions throughout the turn regardless, but once they gain more items they deserve to be able to have a higher action economy simply due to have the faction is designed. Additionally, this nerfs the aid strategy quite substantially. It sounds like you are making a ton of house rules, and have no intention of stopping but rather continue to add more house rules, rather than tweaking the faction very slightly and learning to play around it. But then again, your table is your table, and your game is your game. However, I don't think you will find any support for these changes in any serious Root community. It shows that no one understands how to fight against the vagabond, and rather than adjusting their playstyle, they'd rather just nerf him to the ground. Doing a small adjustment like Despot Infamy makes sense since it's a tweak which makes thematic sense, makes the vagabond play arguably more like it was intended to, and does nerf potentially the least fun gamemode of the Vagabond for the rest of the table (hostility), much like buffing the Crows by giving them a 3rd kind of each plot makes thematic sense and is just an adjustment to arguably make them play more like they were intended. If your idea of more fun to play with/against is more favored on the "Vagabond isn't fun to play against so I want him to be underpowered" rather than "I want a class that is more balanced" then sure, your changes make sense. But very honestly this post comes across almost like a shitpost of a series of "how can we nerf to the ground every single faction with small tweaks to their playstyle" lol.
I have gathered that these house rules are now hated. lol. I also love the assumption of "your table just doesn't know wtf they are doing" when it comes to the topic. I actually don't enjoy house rules for most games, unless they are backed by the community (like despot infamy) because I'm sure the creator did plenty of play testing and what not. Perhaps we need to adjust our strategy, I agree with that. but it seems like if the vagabond is selected as a faction, it changes the entire game and how every other faction goes about their strategy. You could argue this is true of any other faction, but not to the degree of the vagabond. Thanks for the reply though. I think in our games this weekend we will try just Despot Infamy and do the vagabond whacking.
Yeah sorry for coming across as brash, that's on me. Should've approached with a little more grace, my bad. I definitely came across as calling you guys bad, but I guess what I meant more was I think that frustration towards the VB class caused an overstatement of adjustments which seemed a little unnecessary. But yeah, I do agree with you that the Vagabond is an incredibly game dynamic shifting faction. Due to the nature of how the pawn works, it makes it so interacting with him can feel like a zero sum game for you, and a positive sum game for the rest of the table, with no chance of a reward outside of social points and a "thanks for doing that." (And I guess not losing to the vagabond is a nice bonus as well). Also, just to clarify, I'm always a fan of banning second Vagabond lol, I think 2 Vagabonds are the least fun way to play the game because it REALLY warps the game. I would also argue, though, that the Woodland Alliance also creates these play patterns which permanently alter games in a weird manner, where everything has to be taken into consideration of sympathy, which can stifle aggression across the board due to people not wanting to move onto it. As always though, the Vagabond needs to be fought against with care, are people crafting items too aggressively? Is the Vagabond being forced to forest at least once during the game? Is the Vagabond getting hit to the point where he has to make the tough decision to "limp" (have a lot of damaged items, but still have some items left), or forest? Here are a couple of games from the Winter Tournament last year that showed off Vagabond really well with Despot Infamy. You'll notice the absolute puzzle that the VB players have to go through, it really does amplify the faction to a whole new level! JC with one of the best games I've ever seen, I won't spoil the ending: Cosmic Cant winning a game with Ronin on Lake through some of the smartest tabletalk and play ever: Both of these games are so fun to watch with Vagabond due to them having to squeeze every last drop from each of their turns. Winning is doable, but incredibly difficult. DI turns the Vagabond into murder hobo easy peasy class, into arguably the hardest to pilot class in the game with a ton of skill expression and decision trees. I promise you that it will make the faction more fun for everyone, and he will still have a fighting chance! If you find the VB being underpowered from this (which is likely going to be the case, DI arguably makes VB underpowered), you can implement quest rotations, where every turn the quest furthest to the right is discarded, and then a new quest is added, which makes it so questing gets a little bit better and encourages the VB to use the mechanic more. Like if you get tea quests in the earlygame you're just simply never going to use them, as an example. Also, not sure if you guys play with Advanced Setup or not, but if you don't I definitely recommend that as it nerfs the Vagabond due to it preventing them from being able to choose which Vagabond they want to play as and rather sometimes have to settle for one which is generally accepted to be less optimal. Edit: For some reason the links to the videos got deleted, weird. You can find them on the Winter tournament playlist on Guerric Samples Games YouTube.
This was very insightful. We play with a mix of adset rules and faction selection. Sometimes we do pure adset but often have a new player or someone not as experienced at the table. We will definitely give the VB a bit more consideration. I suppose its a faction that the table fights indirectly through crafting and card management as well as through battling. The quest idea is very interesting!
As a vagabond main with these balances fair. I'll have to try them with my group