Buhallin

Oh, that is just stunningly perfect for a Hanged! Definitely picking that up.

So basically the moral of this story is that the game doesn't play well with only a master and 1-2 models per side? Who ever would have guessed? Why is anyone playing at that point level in the first place?

I think the Hanged works very well with Seamus in a lot of ways. Though both Hanged models are male, nothing says they have to be - it would require some converting, but a female Hanged would be a cool addition.

Eh? If you're trying to walk Seamus out of combat, you're Doing It Wrong. Barring a late game mess where you're down to almost nothing, you should always have a Belle in position to get him clear.

The thing is, pretty much every ability which inhibits targeting follows the same wording structure as Terrifying. "When targeting this model, do a duel or something happens." In most cases, the action fails - but equally though, you're still allowed to target it all you want. I can see the wording of See the Unseen covering those situations equally well, so that's where I'm leaning on this one.

I don't believe Perdita has anything that lets her avoid Terrifying at all. Immune to Influence only helps when she's the defender - since Morale Duels are not opposed there is no defender, so she's vulnerable. Interesting. This is a distinction I don't think I've seen anyone catch before, but as near as I can find you are correct.

Biggest drawback to playing Rezzers right now? It's very hard to have a tactical discussion without some very vocal people pushing you towards the one or two models they find competitive enough for their style and taste. I'll also agree with Rathnard about the model count issue - Rezzers as a faction tend towards higher model counts, and Nicodem (especially his avatar) can push it to one of the largest model counts in the game. He's actually the one Rezzer master I don't play simply because I can't bring myself to buy/assemble a dozen or more mindless zombies. The others tend to larger counts too, though - Kirai basically required 5 Seishin, Canine Remains run best in packs (I use 4 and sometimes wish I had 1-2 more), Night Terrors feed off the flock mechanic, etc. Also contributing to that is that (and I think someone mentioned this before) that the Rezzers do have fewer genuinely standard lists. Dreamer and Colette are typically a pretty fixed list. My Rasputina list varies by 1-2 models at most each time I play. Kirai is pretty locked in, but the others vary wildly - there is probably more sub-faction crossover in the Rezzers than any other faction.

I'd disagree with this a bit - I've never had need of more than a single Flesh Construct. I don't think he's worth the stones to take at crew selection, and realistically you're only going to have the opportunity for a couple of summonings during a game. I'd start with one of each - if you find yourself wishing for the second Construct you can pick him up later. I do agree on the 4 dogs, though. I don't think I'd take more than one Belle with McMourning. They provide some great utility, and I'm always a fan of what you can do with Lure, but don't get too much other benefit with him. Plus without Seamus they tend to be on the slow side, and will have a hard time keeping up with McMourning. The good doctor is faster than he seems, and it's pretty easy to hang him out ahead of the rest of his crew. I'm still trying to get around to assembling my Rider, but he seems like he should be good.

I'm considering trying this for our next tournament. Few of our local players have expressed the sort of balance concerns we see here though, so I'm not sure it's really necessary for us.

And I won't defend that when it happens. But the flip side is just as common. I don't find Calmdown's "You're just inexperienced if you think that" to me any more of a valid debate point than someone attacking your attitude over the issues. A great many people feel the atmosphere on this board is becoming unwelcoming and toxic. That affects people. My enjoyment of these games often feeds from the ability to discuss them with other players, and that includes here. I'll be blunt - I don't contribute as much as I used to because it's unpleasant to do so. That is directly attributable to a few posters with attitudes like the one you're defending. I experience more game-related stress trying to follow the nasty discussions than I ever have in a loss to the Dreamer. "Just ignore it" and "people just don't like my honesty" is the shallow refuge of the rude. People can't do that easily, and your honesty is not the problem, and I think you know that. Trying to foist your bad behavior off on those who feel uncomfortable and unwilling to participate in a discussion because of the way you or others will respond to them is crassness of the worst sort. Your behavior is your responsibility, and the negative impacts it has on this community is your responsibility. It's very possible to contribute everything you have to contribute without being insulting.

It doesn't really matter if you are or not. Whether he's really you or not, you create "him", and "he" presents an attitude that many find to be a pretty major turnoff in a discussion. You're responsible for that. No, your point was that more posts are made complaining about broken rules than your attitude, so your attitude isn't so important and, by extension, you're right. I was simply pointing out that your counter is not complete. Nor is mine, of course, but it's a meaningless defense. But plenty of people care more about the atmosphere a forum presents as much as the quality of the hypercompetitive analysis. Nobody is saying "Shut up because I don't like you" so please, spare the martyrdom. This has nothing to do with the arguments or ideas you put forward - it's entirely about the self-superior, insulting attitude in doing so. Some people have taken a moment to point out that the supreme arrogance presented by certain posters - which has frequently been called out as inappropriate by Wyrd - is unwelcome and bad for the community. You may think that people commenting on the toxic atmosphere you create means they have too much time on their hands - nice way to turn it into an attack, BTW - but the effect on the environment is there, and it does impact people and their view of the game. You may not care about it, but you're obviously smart enough to know it happens.

Well, I was kinda granting a bit of benefit of the doubt - that it was one of those random one-liners that was dashed off without realizing how it really sounded. So much for that idea. ---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ---------- You misunderstand. I'm not saying the attitude is bad for testing - that's a separate issue. What I'm saying is that it's bad for the game as a whole. It creates an incredibly unwelcome atmosphere in the community. Pockets can claim his post count as justification that he's not so bad all he wants - that just means people don't bother to call it out publicly. Given my experience with PMs and personal conversations with my local playgroups, I can safely say there's a pretty large contingent there that he's not taking into account. But even then, I've worked on teams with people who presented that attitude, and I can tell you my own experience is that they do more harm than good no matter how skilled they are. I watched an attitude like that cost a project close to $20 million. Maybe QA's different, I dunno - but I certainly wouldn't hire them.

I generally like you, man, but you need to re-read this, take a long look at it, and ponder just how incredibly arrogant and insulting this sounds. I don't care how good think you are, how good you actually are, how much you know, or how much you share - attitudes like this are nothing but horrible for a game.

This can be annoying, but is more than made up for with the general Gremlin vulnerability to Terror. It also makes a great time to pull out the "I've got more corpses than you" scheme, especially since Seamus doesn't make much use of them. Som'er's avatar can make them surprisingly resistant to Terror, but certainly still not a bad matchup just because of the pigs.

The Wagon is breakable terrain which is repositioned each turn. So it's not a model.

Just to be clear and fair, since it seems my Calmdown+Hoffman comment may have been misinterpreted - I was referring to his ongoing trend of complaining about broken models in the most absolute "I'm right and everyone else isn't" manner we all know and love, to include the snarky comments he's thrown in his sig in the past. I have no doubt he's a great player, and I'd never claim that was because he played only "broken" models. I actually wasn't aware that anyone threw that particular accusation at him - for all my issues with him, I think it's a deeply unfair criticism of someone who obviously knows the game, and wanted to correct any idea that I was jumping on that bandwagon. On the larger point, you're saying exactly the same thing I was about tadaka - Malifaux is a game where someone who really knows the system and abilities can do absolutely magical things that make your head spin. In large part, that's why I question the validity of your "multiple local meta" argument - you were basically taking a set of ringers into a variety of local environments, stomping them with models they'd possibly never seen played and almost certainly never seen played the way you did, and then saying "See? Everywhere I go, people think Hamelin is broken."

Yep. The damage is coming from an ability on the model which was hit, so it gets the credit.

I do see what you're saying now, and my apologies for misunderstanding. I'm still not sure I agree with it, however. Malifaux, more than any other tabletop game I've played, has a spike in effectiveness of good players at the high end. On my end, we were lucky enough to have the US Navy bring tadaka through our local area recently. He's a spectacular player, with a love of finding combinations that make your head hurt. He steamrolled the vast majority of us (although I did get a few back primary with Hoffman. More than a few of my local players, after being on the receiving end of his skills, were of the opinion that Hoffman is "broken". Is Hoffman broken? I dunno, but he hasn't yet showed up in Calmdown's sig, so he's probably safe. I will say that he's my Exhibit A for the problems with the Bury mechanic right now, but I doubt he's at the top of anyone's problem list as a master. You're obviously a very serious player. You're going into a local meta with something they may very well have never seen before, at the very least probably using it with a skill and finesse they aren't used to, and stomping people into the ground with it. "It's broken!" is a natural first reaction. So, I'll be honest - I don't think your experience is necessarily a valid data point. If anything, it's even worse than the typical forum complaints. It's one thing to say "My friend and I just started playing, we picked up starters at random and he picked the Dreamer and demolished me, he's broken!" Your case is essentially "I played this really awesome player with Hamelin who demolished me, Hamelin must be broken!" <shrug> I know it probably looks like I'll find problems with everything anyone throws up at this point, but my point really is that there are a ton of things that can contribute to the perception of a model's ability, and even great players can learn something. That's why I take exception with certain people who present their views as absolute. However good you think you are, and however much you travel, you're still playing in a relatively small pool.

Typo, or intentional?

Wow. If only I'd done something to address this in my post... Selective reading/quoting FTW! But let me reiterate my response: Yes, it is condescending. But at least it's dealing with the person doing the posting, and not an entire group who you've never played. You say, "I think the Dreamer is broken" and my response is "You just need to learn to play him" and I've directed that at you, and honestly done so with some shred of evidence - your problems facing the Dreamer. If I say "I don't think the Dreamer is broken" and you say "Everyone you know who plays the Dreamer needs to learn to play him" you've insulted my entire play group, and done so with no evidence at all of their play ability. Additionally, the "learn to play against him" responses are often (but not always) accompanied by attempts to be helpful. "Deal with the Daydreams quickly", "Make sure not to leave your Master exposed to the deep strike", etc. On the flip side ("Everyone you play against sucks") the people involved in the discussion aren't the ones playing the master in question, there is rarely, if ever, any sort of help offered. What would be the point? See the difference?

I think "local meta" applies in the social network sense a lot more than the geographic one. It doesn't really matter how far apart people are if you're seeing the same players on a regular basis. I'm not denying that any of the people listed are good, even great, players. But such groups are often presented as some form of authority - that if you disagree with them, it's because you're not as good as they are, or your opponents aren't, and if you'd have to face THEM then you'd realize just how broken it was because they're that much better than anyone you play. This often extends to results that don't match up with the conventional wisdom - a major tournament produces surprising results, and it's because the attendees were n00bs, and if YOUR group had been there, it never would have come out that way. It's an incredibly condescending attitude, and it annoys me to no end. It's one thing to question someone about how they play against a model they think is broken - what they've tried, what they haven't... and even if it often comes across very condescending, at the very least you're dealing with a person directly. But when someone insults my entire play group, it's taking it to a level well beyond civilized conversation.

To be fair, both sides are guilty of this. The other side usually goes like this: "Dreamer is broken" "No he isn't, I handle him regularly, you just have to learn to deal with him" "Yes he is, all your opponents just suck" I find this is common from the more hardcore competitive players - because nobody's local group could be as hard as THEIRS, so your players just haven't figured out how to make him broken (or, alternately, how to exploit a weakness, so if you're doing well with something they think is a handicap it's because your opponents suck). I tend to think the vast majority of gamers are simply incapable of separating their personal performance with/against models from an evaluation of its capability. Few are self-aware enough to acknowledge that certain tricky bits caught them off guard, and they played poorly. I had one of these episodes the first time I played Collodi - caught me completely off guard, and I came out of the game thinking he was utterly broken. A bit of reflection and evaluation, and I realized I had the tools to deal with him. Powerful? Certainly. Broken? Nah. But in a game with as many tricks and traps as Malifaux, and as much stuff to learn, these experiences are very common.

So I really, REALLY don't need another minis game right now. But the setting for Carnevale is unusual, and several of the models look pretty unique. I'm thinking that they might make good proxies. The Harlot obviously looks like a good Belle or Doxy, and I love their Nurse even if I'm not sure what I'd use her for. The Barnabotti Man would probably work as a Lawyer, and the Ugdru-Rashar are very close to Silithids. Any other thoughts on these?

This is why I hate discussions like the "How do we fix Seamus?" trend running over in the Rezzer area at the moment. It's a very, very short step in the forum world from simple discussion to "Everyone knows..." Some people do a good job of discussing a model's advantages and disadvantages without it being either "broken" or "useless" - others, not so much. Unfortunately, the latter are often the most vocal, and that can set the tone for the entire environment. I don't expect the OP's entreaty to actually moderate any of those vocal people, but I can certainly appreciate the effort

<shrug> I have to be honest, while I can understand the things you think are important for a master, I think it's a bit of a cheat to count that way. You ignore his passive abilities like Belles of the Ball and Hard to Wound for something he keeps, but include Terrifying as something he loses. I also think it's much more complicated than just counting abilities. Nicodem may not lose as many targeted abilities, but he's going to suffer considerably more if his opponent isn't leaving him corpses to work with. I don't really think your last points hold up, either. Everything you list still works against nonliving (assuming we take "terrifying force" as descriptive, rather than ability-referencing). His crew's Wp manipulation still works - Belles and Hanged still rock with him, and Undead Psychosis is still awesome even if you can't lead it in with the -2 Wp. You're trying to present it as if his entire crew's Wp manipulation just falls apart if he can't keep Trail of Fear up. It's a nice ability, but I don't think it's THAT critical. Maybe we just play him differently - but at the very least, that would seem to argue that there are avenues to playing him which function perfectly well against nonliving crews.