I think it's time to do something with Sandeep...

[WWHSD]

16 minutes ago, raderk said:

I appreciate your tone, its sometimes hard for me to sound nicely with my bad english which i apologize for (not my native language).

I'll try to keep that in mind. 

[Gnomezilla]

10 hours ago, KingCrow said:

Hell, you could even make it a 1 ap action.  Perhaps, so as to make his melee build even partially viable, add a trigger something on his melee upgrade that allows him to take the 1 ap action.  Although I still don't think that would make the melee upgrade even worth it still. lol.  

This way he has to ALWAYS dedicate one ap to at least set up the Beacon ability and if he wants to get the most bang for his buck, he has to activate early to allow his crew to use his abilities or use his "free" AP to set it up.  This then can make the Sandeep player choose between setting up the Beacon ability or having the Effigy companion-ing into a summoned Banasuva, amongst doing other things of course.  I think that can be a huge decision for some Sandeep players. 

On its own not a bad idea, but this change (and the less powerful versions of it, in the posts just before it) also complicate matters again for the opponent. Those who already get a headache tracking Beacon usage from across the table have to figure out if a bit more activation bookkeeping will be worth it to get a slightly less flexible Sandeep.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, raderk said:

other people. theres difference in very good players scoring high and good sandeep player scoring high

But the problem is in actually  telling the difference between Very good players playing 1 master vs Good players playing a more powerful master.  (You can't event just get the 2 players to use the same master for a time to try and find out which is the best player. )

If Sandeep is clearly the Best Master out there and everyone in Poland only plays the best Master out there, then why do they not all play Sandeep?  ( I know thats not what you have said, but it is taking your argument to its conclusion. After all the top Arcanist player is only 4th in your rankings. )

2 hours ago, raderk said:

Sandeep overshadowing every other master in AR and steamrolling many tournaments (Sandeep players always score high, even if they make mistakes). Polish NPL, Swedish NPL. I provided many examples as proof and thats why I and most of my meta thinks so. And I'm talking about strict tournament perspective, Sandeep defendants didnt even bother to explain if they are casual or powergamers.

For all the tournament wins you can say Sandeep won, he isn't winning a majority of events in any area that I know of. On the Polish Rankings there are 8 events this year so far, and guess how many were won by Arcanists - 1 It was the nationals, and by far the largest of the events, but I find it poor evidence in an attempt to prove he is clearly the strongest overall. 

 

[WWHSD]

3 minutes ago, Gnomezilla said:

On its own not a bad idea, but this change (and the less powerful versions of it, in the posts just before it) also complicate matters again for the opponent. Those who already get a headache tracking Beacon usage from across the table have to figure out if a bit more activation bookkeeping will be worth it to get a slightly less flexible Sandeep.

I'm not going to be satisfied until my opponents need a spreadsheet with pivot tables to figure out what Sandeep's options are.

[Gnomezilla]

16 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I'm not going to be satisfied until my opponents need a spreadsheet with pivot tables to figure out what Sandeep's options are.

I started to quip about being a Hoffman player and thus not seeing any problem with spreadsheets, but accidentally stumbled over a good point on the way. Much as I see my opponent’s eyes glaze over when I start with “AP 1 of 4, targeting construct A to...”, once Hoffman’s (or any other obey master’s) activation is over I’m not taxing my opponent any more: Sandeep finishes his activation and the three or four free-floating threats of Beacon are still active. The suggested change to Beacon doesn’t simplify that any.

Requiring a 1AP action to activate Beacon (no TN please, let’s not hand him the same fear of the black joker Ramos has) is also a decent trade for Sandeep’s out-of-activation AP. I dare say anyone in the game would happily forfeit an AP on the master’s activation to have it available out-of-activation later (or sooner).

[necroon]

4 hours ago, Adran said:

Secondly, He is "awkward" to play against. You can do things which make the use of Beacon harder to use, but your opponent still has to plan as if any of the models in your crew can use those abilities. 

I find this personally to be an incredible understatement. The amount of elevated foresight and lack of usage of in game tracking for actions available via Beacon is my biggest issue with him. I'd be fairly happy if Arcane Storm got a , maybe cache went down 1 or 2, and Sandeep used conditions or upgrades or something to track what was left for Beacon. I do strongly think that Beacon being (mostly) available to all models is a balance concern, if not today then for the future,  and should, much in the way a lot of models interact with each other, have some further limitation for keyword and station as a continuation of observed healthy and prominent game design methodology. 

I still think he does what he does far too well, and have heard enough mumbling of good players in the Arcanist vein only not playing him because they have made the choice to play something else for non-strategic reasons (IE: I am sick of playing Sandeep so let's throw Marcus down) and reflecting on that being the wrong choice, but an increase in clean game state and easily tracked / noticeable information within the confides of the game would be a huge QOL (quality of life) boost for playing against Sandeep and in of itself, although not a pure solution to my balance concerns, enough to make the games more enjoyable while leading to possibly better and more sound gameplay.

Having to keep track of someone else's available actions each turn through their ability for their crew is irritating. Maybe I'm the only one that lacks the mental aptitude to do so but I doubt it seeing as how most Sandeep players need their own sheet, themselves. It's just a really sloppy way to handle the mechanic, one that seemingly can be improved upon greatly to the benefit of the Sandeep player and the opponent, and very well may be magnifying the issue in my eyes and possibly the eyes of others, as well.

[WWHSD]

4 minutes ago, Gnomezilla said:

Requiring a 1AP action to activate Beacon (no TN please, let’s not hand him the same fear of the black joker Ramos has) is also a decent trade for Sandeep’s out-of-activation AP. I dare say anyone in the game would happily forfeit an AP on the master’s activation to have it available out-of-activation later (or sooner).

If it were a zero action or even a “after this model activates ... until the end of the turn” ability it would put a serious damper on Sandeep by forcing him to act earlier in the turn.

1AP from a master, +1 AP from another model (potentially using a card to cheat for the suit), and a discard seems to be a rather steep cost. If that were to happen, I’d think that the effect should last until Sandeeps next activation.

Maybe Beacon beacon becomes a condition that Sandeep gains when he activates that lasts until the end of the game. Using Student of All would remove the condition. This would limit when Sandeep’s crew could borrow his actions if he’s chooses to use Student of All.

If he doesn’t choose to use Student of All it forces him to activate earlier in the first turn if he intends to use any of the Beacon abilities to move his crew around. This would also give opponents some counter play against Beacon and Student of All through the use of offensive condition removal.

Maybe toss some language in the condition that prevents the condition from being gained in any manner other then what is specified to future proof it against abilities that move or copy conditions.

[raderk]

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

1AP from a master, +1 AP from another model (potentially using a card to cheat for the suit), and a discard seems to be a rather steep cost. If that were to happen, I’d think that the effect should last until Sandeeps next activation.

come on, mages do it without even trying

[raderk]

wales gt - nico nico sandeep. as i said many times in this thread those two masters are currently god tier

[WWHSD]

2 minutes ago, necroon said:

Having to keep track of someone else's available actions each turn through their ability for their crew is irritating. Maybe I'm the only one that lacks the mental aptitude to do so but I doubt it seeing as how most Sandeep players need their own sheet, themselves. It's just a really sloppy way to handle the mechanic, one that seemingly can be improved upon greatly to the benefit of the Sandeep player and the opponent, and very well may be magnifying the issue in my eyes and possibly the eyes of others, as well.

I’ve seen you mention this a few times. I keep meaing to ask you how changing the method of tracking what’s been used make a difference? If the same data essentially needs to be tracked it shouldn’t matter whether it’s being tracked though conditions or through a checklist. There’s still 4 things that need tracking.

Additionally, using conditions to track it now means that there is an additional rules interaction that needs to be considered.

[WWHSD]

4 minutes ago, raderk said:

come on, mages do it without even trying

I did call it out as a potential cost. Mages aren’t always going to be able to trigger Student of All. Other models may need to use the abilities or the Mages may be further than 3 inches from another Academic. 

Also, I hate looking at Sandeep with the assumption that he will have the trio of Mages with him always and forever. I know that it is the case right now but much more than seeing changes to Sandeep I’d like to see the Mages not be auto-includes in Sandeep crews.

[Rillan]

Guys what do u think About make Beacon Action cost more, so models that take Sandeep Action take those as 2AP Actions. This wont change anything with Sandeep itself but make its crew to think twice do they want to take Masters Action or Not. Also dont forget that their just Students so they cant take those actions as easy as master does.

[raderk]

But thats the point in balance oriented discussion. Maxed out list with maximum effort. Mages with their 5ss cost are one of the best possible options,  so w have to include them if were talking about balance.

[raderk]

Rillan i said many times before - I think that Nico is the same godtier power as sandeep.

[necroon]

11 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I’ve seen you mention this a few times. I keep meaing to ask you how changing the method of tracking what’s been used make a difference? If the same data essentially needs to be tracked it shouldn’t matter whether it’s being tracked though conditions or through a checklist. There’s still 4 things that need tracking.

Additionally, using conditions to track it now means that there is an additional rules interaction that needs to be considered.

Because I can see an upgrade or a condition. Because the game governs how they are supposed to be tracked or represented. Because I can see them being attached and discarded or removed. Because I can see tokens on the table and because upgrades and conditions are stated as being public knowledge which is tracked (per Gaining Grounds). Sure if it is a condition someone could opt to use dry erase marker and sure the same individual could refuse to allow me to put my own tokens on the table "because this helps me if you don't mind" but odds are a game with that person would be about as confusing and misrible no matter what they played.

It matters because typically when you look at a model to see if something has been done it's either a "yes or no" like with (0) actions or "Once per X" effects which are easy to commit to short term memory: Did it do the thing? Yes or No. But this is "Yes or no" to four different things under one ability. That's more to remember and in a crew with so many if/thens and moving pieces it's beyond the normal scope in a game that already has some of the more complex interactions between models.

[Rillan]

7 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Also, I hate looking at Sandeep with the assumption that he will have the trio of Mages with him always and forever. I know that it is the case right now but much more than seeing changes to Sandeep I’d like to see the Mages not be auto-includes in Sandeep crews.

Only solution here is make those mages 6 SS each again and no discount with upgrade. Cause now they at 5 SS cost are better than most 6 SS models.

[raderk]

Bringing mages at their printed cost and cutting out that Myranda IE exploit should be enough not only to bring down Sandeep's power level which will result in increased diversity amongs AR Masters but also would increase Sandeep's crew diversity. I'm huge fan of that.

[santaclaws01]

48 minutes ago, raderk said:

wales gt - nico nico sandeep. as i said many times in this thread those two masters are currently god tier

Played by 3 already very good players. Show that there's actually an epidemic of previously mid-table players getting to top tables when using Nico or Sandeep. Show that it's not just good players playing good masters and getting good results because the masters are consistent and it's less mentally taxing for a lot of people to play 1 master they know well for a tournament than it is to play multiple different masters.

[raderk]

Best players with overpowered masters will dominate the meta - Jaimie won UK nationals with his Nico.

[raderk]

Also when i say that hes too good you want me to prove tournaments won by those two. When i provide you with such you say its players not the masters. Why do you even bother talking with me if you care about my point so little.

[santaclaws01]

Just now, raderk said:

Also when i say that hes too good you want me to prove tournaments won by those two. When i provide you with such you say its players not the masters. Why do you even bother talking with me if you care about my point so little.

No, I didn't ask you for tournaments won by players, I asked about the two Sandeep players at your tournament. I asked about instances where a player that has consistently been middle of the pack suddenly starting being a contender because they started playing Sandeep. What's the difference between a very good player and a good Sandeep player? Would those two players at your tournament have had no chance to place as high as they did if they weren't playing Sandeep?

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

I asked about instances where a player that has consistently been middle of the pack suddenly starting being a contender because they started playing Sandeep. 

This is precisely the case of the winner of Polish nationals: he used to play Ten Thunders and Neverborn with okeyish results (http://pol.malifaux-rankings.com/#/players/126), he switched to Sandeep at the beginning of 2018 (according to rankings, I don't know him personally) and his results got substantially improved. To make it clear, I don't want to say that he didn't deserve the first place and we cannot exclude the possibility that in his case the improvement of overall skill simply coincides with the faction change.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Anecdotally since i don’t know the man personally, Ben Sime. From discussions on his podcast in the past when using Mei Feng and Marcus he’d finish mid to upper mid tables playing Mei Feng and Marcus. Switched to Sandeep, made UK masters 2nd day.

Again this is all based on listening to his podcast.

[raderk]

Fun fact - in swedish nationals final game was Sandeep vs. Sandeep. So no matter who wopuld win, Sandeep would claim #1 spot.

Edited April 9, 2018 by raderk
grammar

[tmod]

4 hours ago, raderk said:

Best players with overpowered masters will dominate the meta - Jaimie won UK nationals with his Nico.

Hyperbole.

 

4 hours ago, raderk said:

Also when i say that hes too good you want me to prove tournaments won by those two. When i provide you with such you say its players not the masters. Why do you even bother talking with me if you care about my point so little.

Because you don't provide a shred of evidence for your pretty strong claims. You only provide anecdotes, and only anecdoted that are ambiguous at that. If Sandeep was on a whole different level than everybody else then a mediocre player with Sandeep should consistently beat great players playing other masters. This is not happening. Or every good player should transition to Sandeep (or Nico) or stop winning. This is not happening.

So this all comes down to wild, unsubstatiated and hyperbolic claims, and you (and others) are called out on it. I could make the claim Sandeep is crap, and we'd be on about equal footing when it comes to presenting evidence. I'm sure I could find an example of a player coming dead last in a tournament soloing Sandeep. Of course, this doesn't PROVE Sandeep sucks, it simply proves one Sandeep player sucks, but it's basically the same exercise a lot of the Sandeep critics have engaged in here.

I think it's plausible that it'd be good for overall game health if Sandeep get an adjustment, but the discussion suffers when wild and unsubstatiated claims are thrown around as facts.