New Crew/Tactics

[Mxbedlam]

Hey everyone. Anyone playing anything new? Or have you tried any new tactics out? I'm finding that my lists are getting pretty static lately. I've been playing Arcanists for almost 2 years and outside of tiny adjustments my lists get pretty looked in. I challenged myself to 25 games with each master. So far I've done it with Ramos, Colette, Marcus and Kaeris and while they've helped me dial in my game with those crews, I'm feeling the stagnation lately. 

[Ludvig]

Not an arcanist but I usually try to do themed lists with the worst models and see if I can get them to work. Make a list of all the models you haven't taken in ages and try to make a few of them work.

Remove Joss, Howard, practiced production or whatever your auto includes are from your bag.

[Adran]

I second that. Aim to Play everything you own, it will force you to look again at some models that you discarded and eitehr they now have new synergy, or fit the new schemes well.

 

[WWHSD]

You're rotating masters but are you doing the same with the rest of your list? Do you have a few combination of models that seem to end up in your crew when certain scheme show up regardless of which master you are bringing?

[Mxbedlam]

Pretty much I usually have a core of about 35 points and then a few rotational models depending on the schemes and such.

There's been a few models I've found that are situationally good but I like the ones that consistently perform better. Like Acolytes vs Gunsmiths etc

 

[retnab]

Sounds like the best thing would be to trim 15-20 points out of your core and not allow yourself to play with more of them than that per game, and see how that changes things up for you?

[spooky_squirrel]

I've seen meta stagnation, where some of the more frequent and vocal players get into a mindset about their models that doesn't shift until something undeniably different comes along. At which point the new thing gets focus, but the old things stay the same a lot.

 

To avoid this, I started doing some screwball things, like bringing Luther in my Ramos list and giving Blade and Claw to Joss, while having a Raptor or two available to turn Joss and Johan into beasts and to use whomever is available to let me peek at and stack my own deck. It confuses the heck out of people who are more used to a static mode of play, and having a (0) on Joss (Beast Joss) that lets him swap places with a spider significantly improves his threat range (or otherwise move Luther from one region into another to enable more effective scheme hunting).

Similarly, I've been playing more Mei Feng with less constructs. The only two things that are "fixed" in her crew are Kang and Envy, with models like the Shastar Vidiya Guard or a solitary Oxfordian Mage making an appearance--but even then, I'll swap over to Carlos, Combat Emissary, and the Coryphee for a mobility crew, so I cannot even say that Kang and Envy are fixed in her crew.

Probably my most static crew is the Colette Show on Ice thing, which I've noticed is something I don't even think too hard about dropping on the table when there's "minions do this" schemes in the pool. This prompts me to think about other things I can do with Colette, including using Rail Workers and other models that can boost themselves in some way for the turn, which makes things like Prompt, Reactivate, and All Together Now so much more interesting.

[Sybarite]

I dont have any fixed lists but some models keep on coming back in most crews. My Marcus lists tend to have Myranda a raptor and a cerberus, often Cassandra as well. But the rest changes.

Cooper crews actually change a lot for me. The only model who is always there is Myranda. Well theres almost always a wind gamin or two nowadays as well.

With Mei I always take Cassandra to help with scheme stuff. Always emberling and arcane effigy. The rest is in flux. 

Last year I mostly played neverborn though, because I needed change. Back then I kept bringing cassandra, langston, joss, johan and stuff was getting a bit boring. So swapping factions was my method.

 

 

[Mxbedlam]

I literally never take Howard anymore. The only crew I bring a model over 10 points is Raspy where Snowstorm is mandatory but that crew is definitely static.  Generally I take 1 acolyte, Myranda, Angelica, a raptor, and a performer for almost every master out there.  Alternately I'll play something like 3 mages and Joss instead for like Mei, Kaeris or Ironsides.   

Mech Rider MIGHT get some play, but its hard for me to justify the points

 

[Sybarite]

Interesting. I never take the rider jag either. I prefer lists with a higher tempo. Id rather take something killy.

 

I only use acolytes with Colette though (dont play raspy) and I never bought Angelica. Can certainly see the appeal. I just always bring production on Cassandra and Angelica never seemed essential for my playstyle.

[Mxbedlam]

There comes a point where the few points you save from Cassandra to Angelica with Practiced Production are pretty key. Slower lists like Ramos, Rasputina, etc really benefit from the pushes. And Marcus with Angelica means that you can get into an even more advantageous alpha strike position. 

[spooky_squirrel]

2 hours ago, Mrbedlam said:

There comes a point where the few points you save from Cassandra to Angelica with Practiced Production are pretty key. Slower lists like Ramos, Rasputina, etc really benefit from the pushes. And Marcus with Angelica means that you can get into an even more advantageous alpha strike position. 

The point described here is one of the areas that my local meta is stuck behind (see also: stagnation). Some of the Arcanist players cannot see any reason to take Angelica over Cassandra, even with the relatively significant cost difference when you're trying to optimize your hires. Cassandra has roles to play, absolutely, but sometimes you need Joss, Johan, Kang, etc. a little further up the board than their own legs can get them, because what they bring your crew is incredible important where Cassandra might normally wander off on her own to hunt scheme runners if she doesn't have a more critical role.
At the risk of sounding critical, it's something that comes about from people having fixed lists that they like to drop into strat/scheme pools without regard for opposing faction and terrain. Without exploring the range of options in a faction, there's a whole lot of nuance being overlooked in favor of what is comfortable and well-rehearsed. This can actually lead to some of the wtf is this bs?! responses to variations in hiring preferences when comparing regional metas. Their respective experiences vary, sometimes dramatically.
My local meta sees little value in Angelica and The Valedictorian, for example. Some of that is because I'm never playing casual games with any kind of "must try to win" thought and at tournaments they run into completely different Arcanist players; some of that is because of the other things that people are playing. For instance, I drop Mei Feng and Kang into Arcanists a lot; often enough where someone wanting to try out The Valedictorian is going to need to care a lot about the liabilities that she introduces when facing something that is a hard counter to Terrifying Undead/Constructs. The top Arcanist players in the regional/tournament meta also aren't running the same things I run, and a carry over effect from other wargames is a tendency to follow "known good" trends instead of trying to break new ground.

 

 

Building off of @Mrbedlam's "slower lists":
Angelica is also a great addition to Mei Feng, as it allows you to get Kang further up the field without activating, or if you're running a pair of Rail Workers as your linemen, get them into a position where they can actually influence the board from the top of Turn 2. Either use helps overcome the dramatic difference in speed between Mei Feng and her crew, to the point where if you're using Mei Feng in a supporting role more than scheming, she'll have to work a little harder to keep up with the crew (actually cheat in the Rail Walk to bump up the table to keep her Vent Steam bubble over her line, since walking alone won't cut it for more than a turn).

She will seem redundant in a Colette crew that is relying on speedy runners and reliable tricks, but if you switch gears to a more brick approach (i.e. Rail Workers, Large Steam Arachnid, Joss), then the friendly pushes actually can help a great deal. It helps overcome the relative slowness of some of the more brick-like crew options early in the game, and lets you push your minions out of engagement to do the work they're hired to do (like scheme as a (0)) if needed.

What it comes down to is how you are addressing the question that the strat/schemes/terrain/opponent faction asks you.
Slower moving crews might enjoy the bump in speed that Angelica grants more than anything Cassandra does within that crew. Maybe Carlos came along for the ride, but due to his assigned role is sporting Warding Runes and Stunt Double, so having your only showgirl enforcer be the Practiced Production caddy might make some sense, and her pushes are something you might not see as much use out of unless you've got a few slower elements or want to get the Mannequin's aura displaced to the next Performer/Oiran so that they can get those explosives properly planted.

[Mxbedlam]

15 hours ago, spooky_squirrel said:

The point described here is one of the areas that my local meta is stuck behind (see also: stagnation). Some of the Arcanist players cannot see any reason to take Angelica over Cassandra, even with the relatively significant cost difference when you're trying to optimize your hires. Cassandra has roles to play, absolutely, but sometimes you need Joss, Johan, Kang, etc. a little further up the board than their own legs can get them, because what they bring your crew is incredible important where Cassandra might normally wander off on her own to hunt scheme runners if she doesn't have a more critical role.
At the risk of sounding critical, it's something that comes about from people having fixed lists that they like to drop into strat/scheme pools without regard for opposing faction and terrain. Without exploring the range of options in a faction, there's a whole lot of nuance being overlooked in favor of what is comfortable and well-rehearsed. This can actually lead to some of the wtf is this bs?! responses to variations in hiring preferences when comparing regional metas. Their respective experiences vary, sometimes dramatically.
My local meta sees little value in Angelica and The Valedictorian, for example. Some of that is because I'm never playing casual games with any kind of "must try to win" thought and at tournaments they run into completely different Arcanist players; some of that is because of the other things that people are playing. For instance, I drop Mei Feng and Kang into Arcanists a lot; often enough where someone wanting to try out The Valedictorian is going to need to care a lot about the liabilities that she introduces when facing something that is a hard counter to Terrifying Undead/Constructs. The top Arcanist players in the regional/tournament meta also aren't running the same things I run, and a carry over effect from other wargames is a tendency to follow "known good" trends instead of trying to break new ground.

 

 

 

My list stagnation lately honestly comes from the fact that I've played as extensively as I have with the masters I play. I ran 25 games exclusively with them and found the lists I enjoy playing with them and then sort of "forgot" that the other stuff exists. It does make it easier when going to tournaments and such to not have to really analyze what I need to put on the table for any given game but it also means that models like Union Miners, Soul Stone Miners, Willy,  and Rail Golem haven't had any real table time since I gave them a try and went "meh".

[spooky_squirrel]

3 hours ago, Mrbedlam said:

My list stagnation lately honestly comes from the fact that I've played as extensively as I have with the masters I play. I ran 25 games exclusively with them and found the lists I enjoy playing with them and then sort of "forgot" that the other stuff exists. It does make it easier when going to tournaments and such to not have to really analyze what I need to put on the table for any given game but it also means that models like Union Miners, Soul Stone Miners, Willy,  and Rail Golem haven't had any real table time since I gave them a try and went "meh".

That's individual faulting. I'm quite guilty of the same thing, I get into a groove and I end up with blinders.

What makes it tricky for me in my regional tournament scene is I'm a single data point. Nothing to really base an analysis off of. So when I try to bounce new thoughts off of other players I run headlong into local meta stagnation of thought. Many of the players at my LGS come from WMH/40k/WHFB and other games where your list is fixed at the tournament, and preparation for a tournament involves condensing down information from battle reports and testing out individual tweaks on a known good solution, refining your list until you know it inside and out. It's solid practice for games that have fixed lists, but it's a habit that doesn't necessarily apply directly to Malifaux. Unless the meta is stagnating into set tournament crews.

It does somewhat apply to specific combinations, like Practiced Production and Malifaux Raptors: you practice using them in more casual games to learn the limitations of it, but you don't build your whole crew around that combination. It's only 3/10 VP (or 3/11 if you're playing the more complicated game of deliberately countering your opponent), so you need to be thinking about how else you can score and what else you can be doing. Mainly because this module isn't going to apply in all situations, so it's not something that will always be there. So you practice various modules into specific schemes or strategies to see how well it functions. As you get more and more familiar with set modules, you might find yourself with crews that only vary by which 7-13 stone module gets swapped in for a specific strat/scheme pool. These are blinders I find myself wearing at times (i.e. Angelica and Practiced Production with a Raptor for Marker Schemes, Emissary for killing/positioning schemes are two 10 stone modules that I've swapped between).

Once I notice that happening, I completely switch up what I'm doing and try to figure out if there are things I'm missing in other models. I'll read through others' battle reports and list theoryfaux, listen to podcasts about what people have been seeing as effective and why. Then I re-review the model and take into consideration what those other sources said.

This causes me to break out models like the Soul Stone miners, brush the dust off of them, and start interrogating them for what they can do that I cannot do with 6 stones elsewhere. Once I start using other approaches to Leave Your Mark than Angelica/PP/Raptor, I find myself looking at the other things that I can do with Raptors, like raking my own eyes to stack my deck or enraging Joss/Johan/Kang to make them a Beast so that I can place them as a (0) from an upgrade. It takes a couple dozen games to shake down a new modular response to a scheme or strategy and practice new maneuvers enough where I feel comfortable putting them on a table early in a tournament.

I think with more practice I can get to my goal is to not even rely on modules, but rather overlapping abilities that allow me to be less predictable and play in a more interesting fashion. This should help me break out of stagnating patterns of thinking and play.

That practice involves a lot of doing this:

On 5/26/2017 at 4:55 AM, Adran said:

I second that. Aim to Play everything you own, it will force you to look again at some models that you discarded and eitehr they now have new synergy, or fit the new schemes well.

Even when it means an Oiran joins Arcanist Mei Feng. Because sometimes things get really funny when your opponent has no idea what you're doing and you're planning on playing a game so disruptive that the final score might be 2-1, and even then only because schemes start hidden.