Exorcist - one too many anti-resurrectionists?

[sephiroa]

No-ones right it's just opinions, but as a Resurrectionist player that normally wins my personal opinion is more in line with yours. I also personally feel a lot of people see an issue or lose a game and just give up thinking that the opponent is overpowered rather than trying to think about how to deal with the issue. Look at Pandora, on paper almost impossible to beat, people say playing her is like being stuck under a burning couch. But actually I've rarely lost against her, why, because I didn't panic, read what she did, altered my play style.

well thank you,

i have to agree with that, talking about weak or strong are opinions, and sometimes people are stubborn to admit that these are opinions and they are not right, and not wrong.

That starts an argument that I'm not sure I want to see on these forums...that's one of those that only ends in fire, anger, rage and bitterness...

well, that's your opinion I can keep my head cool a henchman sometimes have to deal with these problems i love to agrue about some things, but i also know when things are going TO far so don't worry

[nilus]

I agree with much of your post, but I'm curious as to how this sweeping statement includes Perdita Ortega and C. Hoffman.

Yeah me too. Looking at Calmdowns record in his sig I suspect he might just need to play some more challenging Guild opponents.

[mythicFOX]

Absolutely, and that's what makes him workable, because he's not reliant on a condition existing (living/undead models) that he has no control over.

But then...how many tournaments have you won with McMourning, or even chosen to play him at?

I took him to the UK Games Expo event, I didn't perform well that day but had a lot of fun with him all the same.

[Calmdown]

No-ones right it's just opinions, but as a Resurrectionist player that normally wins my personal opinion is more in line with yours. I also personally feel a lot of people see an issue or lose a game and just give up thinking that the opponent is overpowered rather than trying to think about how to deal with the issue. Look at Pandora, on paper almost impossible to beat, people say playing her is like being stuck under a burning couch. But actually I've rarely lost against her, why, because I didn't panic, read what she did, altered my play style.

But this is where good players often fall down on game theory; the assumption that because they can win, there is not a problem. The fact that you can or have beaten [insert Neverborn model here] is exactly what James talks about in his blog where he asserts that the 'Neverborn issue' isn't necessarily a problem; they can be beaten, obviously. But from the outset the game should be more or less fair on both sides of the fence, the rock/paper/scissors of model choice notwithstanding (although rock/paper/scissors is an area where Neverborn excel at the moment due to their larger pool of effective models), and it's not. Beating Neverborn with a large portion of the masters/models available to other factions is an uphill struggle that can be compensated for by skill, but assuming similar skill and luck, Neverborn have the outstanding advantage.

Also, here's a spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9_FG3ow0XmdExsR18yS3RXX2tHN3NxTTBRRXdLUEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

[Jonas Albrecht]

We need the spreadsheet that shows the total number of players representing factions to go along with that.

[sephiroa]

But this is where good players often fall down on game theory; the assumption that because they can win, there is not a problem. The fact that you can or have beaten [insert Neverborn model here] is exactly what James talks about in his blog where he asserts that the 'Neverborn issue' isn't necessarily a problem; they can be beaten, obviously. But from the outset the game should be more or less fair on both sides of the fence, the rock/paper/scissors of model choice notwithstanding (although rock/paper/scissors is an area where Neverborn excel at the moment due to their larger pool of effective models), and it's not. Beating Neverborn with a large portion of the masters/models available to other factions is an uphill struggle that can be compensated for by skill, but assuming similar skill and luck, Neverborn have the outstanding advantage.

Also, here's a spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9_FG3ow0XmdExsR18yS3RXX2tHN3NxTTBRRXdLUEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

aah, so that is what you where talking about,

i have to say i agree that neverborn are slightly better than any other faction,

but i have to add, that neverborn and outcast are more common than any other faction as well. (that's here in Belgium, simply beacuse that said neverborn master is "superior")

[pgbsamurai]

I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that we know our preferred crews better than the ones we go up against. Because of that we see our own weaknesses a lot more clearly than those of crews that are perceived as over powered. I play Neverborn primarily. I know a lot of people see the whole faction as overpowered. I see a lot of chinks in my own crews armor though, and am more than willing to point out those weeknesses.

A lot of players in my area are Ressers and I have seen them pull out some really good tactics and wipe the floor with my crews. A big part of it just comes down to perception. Ratty made a good point above, look at what your opponent can do and change your tactics accordingly.

[mythicFOX]

The fact that you can or have beaten [insert Neverborn model here] is exactly what James talks about in his blog where he asserts that the 'Neverborn issue' isn't necessarily a problem; they can be beaten, obviously. But from the outset the game should be more or less fair on both sides of the fence, the rock/paper/scissors of model choice notwithstanding (although rock/paper/scissors is an area where Neverborn excel at the moment due to their larger pool of effective models), and it's not. Beating Neverborn with a large portion of the masters/models available to other factions is an uphill struggle that can be compensated for by skill, but assuming similar skill and luck, Neverborn have the outstanding advantage.

Also, here's a spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9_FG3ow0XmdExsR18yS3RXX2tHN3NxTTBRRXdLUEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Slight perversion of my argument there CalmDown.

In my blog post I talk about Neverborn being the most powerful faction but how the other factions have power masters on the same level as the cream of the Neverborn crop. I also talk about why having varying levels of power is good for the game.

As for the data we also need to strip out player skill as well as population. I was going to write an article about what the current event data says about the game but having poured a couple of hours analysis into it I came to the conclusion it doesn't tell us anything.

[Ratty]

The problem you have there is it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Serious tournament players want to win. Everyone complains Neverborn are the most powerful faction, tournament players take Neverborn (Just look at the % Neverborn at Gencon). Tournaments are generally won by serious tournament players. People take the tournament results to prove they were right to complain that Neverborn are overpowered.

[mythicFOX]

+1

[sephiroa]

so true. you said exactly what I was thinking

and i believe neverborn have got the most sneaky and nasty tricks in their sleeve. and tournament players will use them.

[nilus]

The problem you have there is it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Serious tournament players want to win. Everyone complains Neverborn are the most powerful faction, tournament players take Neverborn (Just look at the % Neverborn at Gencon). Tournaments are generally won by serious tournament players. People take the tournament results to prove they were right to complain that Neverborn are overpowered.

Been saying the same thing for months every time someone says "Neverborn is OP".

[ukrocky]

Does that mean that in 12 months when I've won every event with Marcus he'll be considered OP

[sephiroa]

does that mean that in 12 months when i've won every event with marcus he'll be considered op

lol! fine with me

pressed the reply a bit to early ^^

[Calmdown]

Spreadsheet updated with player numbers.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9_FG3ow0XmdExsR18yS3RXX2tHN3NxTTBRRXdLUEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Whilst I agree that raw data has to be taken with a grain of salt and is open to interpretation (particularly in 'self fulfilling prophecy' terms of a faction gets good, more people play it, skews tournament results) I think if you look at the player numbers there it's clear that Neverborn are not particularly overrepresented.

The thing that this cannot take into account, of course, is player skill and the fact that the same players may well have won with a weaker faction. However, statistical data rarely takes this into account. And if you look over the actual raw data (if you dont trust the numbers) you'll see that it isn't particularly fixed to specific players.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Calmdown

[ukrocky]

You gotta love the gt result . OUTCASTS R BENT.

[sephiroa]

Spreadsheet updated with player numbers.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9_FG3ow0XmdExsR18yS3RXX2tHN3NxTTBRRXdLUEE&hl=en_US#gid=0

Whilst I agree that raw data has to be taken with a grain of salt and is open to interpretation (particularly in 'self fulfilling prophecy' terms of a faction gets good, more people play it, skews tournament results) I think if you look at the player numbers there it's clear that Neverborn are not particularly overrepresented.

The thing that this cannot take into account, of course, is player skill and the fact that the same players may well have won with a weaker faction. However, statistical data rarely takes this into account. And if you look over the actual raw data (if you dont trust the numbers) you'll see that it isn't particularly fixed to specific players.

congrats on the fast update

what suprises me is that arcanists played very well.

i have to agree that neverborn are better, and that the few numbers more don't make up for the huge winning for neverborn masters,

but to say that the rezzers are doomed is a big word

but i believe we are going off topic

[Jonas Albrecht]

what suprises me is that arcanists played very well.

I sense a lot of frilly dresses involved.

[ukrocky]

I can tell you the 3rd at deliverance had no sorts of frilly dresses despite 4 of the arcanists there being frilly!

[nilus]

I sense a lot of frilly dresses involved.

Ramos in Drag?

[nix]

Just a quick question, which is basically is my understanding of the UK tourney scene accurate?

As I understand it, the UK tourney scene does not run per the Wyrd recommended tournament method of:

1. Declare Faction
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy Crew
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

But instead runs on the following system:

1. Declare master plus a pool of additional models that can be taken (50ss is what I have heard)
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy crew from your selected 50SS of models
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

If this is correct, I would posit (as I did in my discussion with Mythic Fox) that this is not how the game is balanced overall. This is not to infer that this method is incorrect, only that when discussing balance we should understand all the data behind the statistics being presented.

Can anyone tell me if this is accurate?

[Calmdown]

Just a quick question, which is basically is my understanding of the UK tourney scene accurate?

As I understand it, the UK tourney scene does not run per the Wyrd recommended tournament method of:

1. Declare Faction
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy Crew
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

But instead runs on the following system:

1. Declare master plus a pool of additional models that can be taken (50ss is what I have heard)
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy crew from your selected 50SS of models
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

If this is correct, I would posit (as I did in my discussion with Mythic Fox) that this is not how the game is balanced overall. This is not to infer that this method is incorrect, only that when discussing balance we should understand all the data behind the statistics being presented.

Can anyone tell me if this is accurate?

Yes, accurate to within a certain degree (ie there has been some variance in the specifics of SS but generally you're right).

I've also mentioned this a few times to a few UK tournament organsiers and been told "hey, I'm just trying this method, I'll try a different one next time". The game is absolutely not balanced around this format.

But it gets unbalanced in a different way when the format is changed, in that Neverborn are suddenly an unknown factor, having a full pool of 4 top tier and 1 pretty good master to choose from whereas most factions have 1/0 top tier masters and a number of others ranging from good to bad. So suddenly the other factions are capable of smart list choices to play vs certain enemy lists, but the enemy lists become so unpredictable that you suddenly have a pure rock/paper/scissors system which certain factions with better minion ranges (Neverborn, I'm looking at you again) have an advantage in.

Who knows how this will all pan out in the book 3 environment though. Maybe it will all suddenly get better. I doubt it but one can hope

[nix]

Yes, accurate to within a certain degree (ie there has been some variance in the specifics of SS but generally you're right).

Fair enough. Is it possible to update the spreadsheet to reflect the chosen masters? Is there a prevalence to certain masters never being taken or the opposite, certain masters dominating a faction choice?

BTW, I love statistics.... especially for use to look at things like these concerns.

I am also loving that a conversation about Exorcist Hate turned into a NB is overpowered bash... I love the Wyrd boards.

[mythicFOX]

Just a quick question, which is basically is my understanding of the UK tourney scene accurate?

As I understand it, the UK tourney scene does not run per the Wyrd recommended tournament method of:

1. Declare Faction
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy Crew
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

But instead runs on the following system:

1. Declare master plus a pool of additional models that can be taken (50ss is what I have heard)
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy crew from your selected 50SS of models
   
4. Choose Scheme
   
5. Start game
   

If this is correct, I would posit (as I did in my discussion with Mythic Fox) that this is not how the game is balanced overall. This is not to infer that this method is incorrect, only that when discussing balance we should understand all the data behind the statistics being presented.

Can anyone tell me if this is accurate?

It tends to run as;

1. Declare master
   
2. Pick/Identify Strategy
   
3. Buy crew
   
4. Choose Schemes
   
5. Start game
   

The odd event has a pool but mostly it open. More events using the normal Wyrd method are coming up and long term I see the scene switching to that method almost completely.

Like I say the data, which I've been over at length doesn't tell you much when you get into the detail. There are a lot of other factors clouding that data.

[Calmdown]

Fair enough. Is it possible to update the spreadsheet to reflect the chosen masters? Is there a prevalence to certain masters never being taken or the opposite, certain masters dominating a faction choice?

BTW, I love statistics.... especially for use to look at things like these concerns.

I am also loving that a conversation about Exorcist Hate turned into a NB is overpowered bash... I love the Wyrd boards.

Well that's kind of my fault. Or all my fault. The original point I was making in regard to the OP was that releasing anti-Rezzer models is irrelevent in the face of everything else that Rezzers have to deal with

I dont have access to all of those stats unfortunately - if TOs start capturing them, report them to RHQ, and RHQ give me a copy of the Malifaux DB then of course I can produce said stats.

Like I say the data, which I've been over at length doesn't tell you much when you get into the detail. There are a lot of other factors clouding that data.

I'm interested to hear what you think is clouding this so much that it is invalid (and if you think that you, Craig, whoever else playing Neverborn clouds it because you think you would have won with whatever you're playing, please say so, because I assumed that argument would appear at some point...).

Edited August 22, 2011 by Calmdown