dancater

20 minutes ago, profdikweed said:

I don't think molemen change much. They are only useful if your opponent puts out terrain markers. You have the same issue as before where they have to set up their own network. Unsure if making tunnels for marcus's beasts is useful as you already have access to plenty of movement for them already. When they are competing with the eagle for usefulness I think its still a no brainer which one to bring. Agree on the network of tunnel wording, unsure why you cant unbury next to a literal marker representing a tunnel.

Largely agree, they have gained a small amount of increased durability, notably +1Wd, but doubt this changes much. Again not being able to synergise with Mutations hurts them in keyword really badly, in the durability stakes as well.

They still do awful damage. There movement shenanigans may be worth taking them, but honestly they look fiddly and difficult to set up well outside of specific tables. 

At best they seem to me to have gone from unviable regardless to a highly limited tech pick largely based on table terrain or perhaps a specific opponent that heavily utilises severe terrain themselves. Overall, meh.

As for Neil Henry, he is a model I've never taken, in a crew I rarely played. So really need deeper insights into Foundry to measure him up. As a regular OOK choice, at 8+1 tax SS I really can't see taking him often in my Colette and Raspy crews, although as stated marker destruction is increasingly important, is it 9SS important with what else Neil brings? I don't see it, but then I have yet to see one of the really Marker heavy masters opposite me.

So,

There is already a separate forum post for the biggest model re-vamp we got, Raspy-1 has some super interesting changes and its worth digging into that post to explore and comment. Personally very pleased.

Concerning Masters there is what I consider, if I interpret it correctly, a needed nerf for Kaeris Reborn - ° Pg 29 – Burning – Add the following Text to Burning “(to a maximum of 5 damage).” So that caps Scorching Radiance unless I'm very wrong, which I think is necessary.

So non-Masters we didn't actually see much,

First Molemen (yay!), they had long been only worth literal burial, but are they better now? First I'm disappointed that they did not get any real Chimera synergy in moving or interacting directly with Mutation upgrades 😪. Second why does Network of Tunnels not say friendly Scheme Marker AND Severe Tunnel Markers. But otherwise more Wounds, more potential movement shenanigans and some ranged durability in any difficult terrain, for 4SS I will look hard at them in Chimera, at least one, maybe two. OOK I don't think 5SS displaces anything available that I can see.

Neil Henry (OK, cool). Nail Down could be useful, with Steel Driver he certainly could hit hard enough on a trigger to cycle Scrap Markers. Bulldoze is huge in the heavy Marker game which the new Titles makes hugely important. Df increase is always useful. 

Pretty much agree 100% with everything Jordan identified. 

I think Raspy-1 could get a buff on her card to allow better synergy with some of her Frozen Heart, allowing some of these models to be buffed in her lists but not in Raspy-2 who does not need it, especially not the summonable models without careful consideration.

Having said that the living Frozen Heart models all pretty much need to be looked at:

• The Silent One needs to be slightly pulled back, they are too good, especially out of keyword. 
• The Dec Acolyte needs to be able to work with Ice Pillars, not be actively inhibited by one of the crews core mechanics, they could also use a little more durability.
• The Ice Dancer is a null model, not really useful in either Raspy crews (except as a corner case summon) and useless for Colette, largely doing for high cost what the crew excels in anyway with no additional tech. Ice Dancer needs either more utility and tech or a reduction in cost, I'd prefer the former. Both in Frozen Heart and Showgirl.

Ice Gamin need love to at least be worth taking over Kaldgeist, not much, but something - perhaps they could be a big winner in a Raspy-1 rework giving them great play with Raspy-1 and a lot less in Abominable. But I'd like to see a little for both. To be honest they are also average into Elemental with Sandeep, so a very small across the board buff with a little extra love into Raspy-1 would be my ideal situation.

Hoarcats are poor in Raspy-1, bad in both Marcus iterations and have only very limited play with Raspy-2, they could use a small nudge, especially outside Raspy-2.

Snowstorm as identified needs something to increase her ranged attacks, Ice Mirror would likely be perfect.

Ox Mages and Vidya Guard suffer in that Elementals were already strong in Sandeep-1 (as summons alone) and they got nothing at all really in Sandeep-2, which leaves these two Academic selections out in exile. I'd like to see both buffed, both Sandeep crews could really use tech selections, and these guys would be excellent for that, also could be OOK repositories for specific types of tech (marker destruction, ruthless, anti-demise) that Arcanists need a little more of.

Moleman is awful and needs a lot of love, pretty much anything would help them.

Showgirls suffer from the same issue as Ice Dancers, they don't bring anything meaningful to Showgirls commensurate to their cost, and are useless OOK. The Showgirls need something more, I'd love to see them with a heal and/or a good lure.

Firebrand simply needs to either be cheaper or have better durability and a more reliable heal. Also could use positive interactions with Pyre markers like the Dec Acolytes they were against a core keyword mechanic, which sucks.

I don't play Kang, so here I have no real comment to add.

With the new titles:

Kaeris-2 and Hoffman-2 are prone to negative play experiences.

Kaeris-2 scorching radiance burn damage really badly needs to be capped, it is hideous on a unresistable front of card action in a crew which can stack burning so high, I find it unfun to play the game building a Kaeris-2 burning bomb and then unleashing it, both as the Kaeris player and as her opponent.

Also I agree the Hoff-2's Pylons need to be destructible and a shade easier to summon, I also think the up to 4 irresistible damage he can churn out is to much but maybe addressing the Pylons reduces that to a more reasonable thing, but I wouldn't mind seeing the damage becomes irreducible appearing in a trigger (I'd vote a myself).   

Also agree that the card language of both Colette-2 (hell I struggled mightily in the forum post on this cards effects) and Sandeep-2 badly need a FAQ clarification on specific core card mechanics. For Colette-2 the Routine Performance and Decoy play. For Sandeep-2 the Student of All needs a FAQ clarification. 

All of this also comes with an additional caveat, we have no idea what versatile models (especially in terms of living/construct, SS costs and interesting tech) the Arcanist starter box models will be, this could have even more important implications for our internal and external crew balance. I wonder when we will see this, the next Gen Con feels like a long way away, I hope it is before then.

On 1/4/2022 at 11:51 AM, Jordon said:

For me, it's less about OOK hate. I will admit I'm big on theme so there are certain things I just won't bring regardless of viability. To me, the issue is more with OOK dominance. Silent One's are seen everywhere. As is Mad Dog in Outcasts, as are Archivist in Explorers. Seems like every faction has their own version and I don't believe it's the intention to have single models taken so universally. 

100% agree.

Keywords should strive for balance, within the keyword, within the faction and across other factions. 

Versatile models should fill the role of bringing specific tech, unique abilities or a reliable (but un-keyword buffed) model. The keyword buff should always make a keyword model preferred over a versatile at any task both models are designed to achieve. Versatile brings what the keyword can't or supplies a model which can function at its given task without worrying about the keyword buff.

Out of keyword is the corner case, with the +1 tax the logic of a OOK model as useful and valuable should be restricted to only those circumstances where you are looking to achieve a very specific task, a unusual thing the keyword and versatiles simply cannot cover effectively, especially tech against very specific models/crews or into very specific scheme/strat pools. When OOK is a default choice I think we have two issues:

1. The OOK model is likely to strong outside its keyword, and should, as others have identified, be more limited to a focus primarily in keyword.
2. The other keyword and versatile options are likely underpowered for the specific role the OOK plays. Now if this is a unusual or corner role, that is fine, paying the +1 tax for that is, I think, the design aim. But if the OOK appears a lot then we are not talking about a small, niche role but something much more widespread and essential to most, if not all, crews, scheme/strat pools and opponents. In this example we have healing, a primary reason a Silent One is taken both in and out of keyword, healing is clearly a priority and universally useful ability to nearly every crew, Arcanists have numerous models which can heal - so the question is why is the Silent One the default Arcanist healer in practically every circumstance, clearly this means the relevant models need a review, maybe a slight nerf to Silent One focussing its healing in keyword (see Cats Laughing suggestion) while at the same time slightly buffing the relevant approximate minion models in other Arcanist keywords.

A huge problem has always been Magical Training which limited the design space for minions in Arcanists (and still does for living minions). But I acknowledge what eddy states nerfing the Silent One as the only real living minion and healer viable in Arcanists is short-sighted if you don't also look at slightly buffing several other keyword minions, because in this area Arcanists have a number of underpowered and uninspiring models. 

As most people in this post have acknowledged we need a combination of a slight nerf to certain models and a a little buff to a wider range of weaker models. First in order to balance the in-faction choices and then second to make sure those in-faction choices are reasonably equitable to the options available to other factions.

Basically we want to play the faction, not just different master keywords, their few 'best' models, and with the plug-in of around a half dozen or so other models while the majority of the faction selections languish on a shelf. For many masters the alt-masters have helped this, breathing new life into older keyword options. But the dominance of the Silent One clearly highlights a little more work needs doing on both the Over Power and Under Power ends of the Arcanist scale.    

On 12/31/2021 at 9:43 AM, Jordon said:

Many may disagree but I think these ladies might need some adjusting. I see them taken OOK all the time, usually in place of other in-keyword healing options. It hurts my brain to see them constantly taken with Kaeris over Firebranded. It used to be the soul stone miner that was the the "always" pick but now I feel Silent Ones are taking over. 

So for me it comes down to whether they're too good all around or whether they are fine in keyword and maybe just need some restrictions to keep them a little more keyword focused. While I don't claim to be a competitive gamer, I can understand why they seem so attractive. 

Unlike Raspy who relies on her triggers, the Silent Ones don't really see the same restrictive grip with Ice Mirror. They can sit back, plop down pillars and support the entire crew from relative safety. Healing is universally valuable and the pillars themselves can be handy in slowing down the opposing crew. 

While I do think they are the MVP for Raspy, they don't seem over the top in December crew. That might be because the December keyword struggles so much, however. Raspy2 can summon them which is obviously great and doesn't help when trying to factor in balance. It's probably too early to really know their place in Raspy2 crews. 

So until Raspy1 gets some kind of help I'd be hesitant to call for any kind of nerf to the Silent One. What might help, however, would be to tie their healing to December models. That way Raspy crews are more or less in tact, but maybe other crews might have to think harder about their inclusion OOK. 

I imagine others will have strong opinions on a change like this but I'm interested in hearing other peoples thoughts. Are Silent Ones too good? Are you seeing them taken OOK often? 

I agree, the issue is (1) Silent Ones are a shade too good (2) Some other keywords have similar role models (eg Firebrands) which are a shade underpowered and (3) the Frozen Heart keyword and especially Raspy-1 are a bit of a mess.

The solution is both simple, fix the issues above, and complex, it is multiple issues.

1. So Silent Ones need to be, slightly, nerfed, maybe a trigger or even a slight change which makes their current play more keyword dependent - say a restriction on their healing of non Frozen Heart models. 
2. Firebrands (along with a limited selection of other models [Molemen]) need a buff to bring sadly lagging models up to par, both the Silent One and Medical Automaton are better choices as healers in Wildfire than a Firebrand even with the OOK tax, which tells you that the Firebrand needs a little help. As Plaag says maybe a little more durability would be the simple answer.
3. Rasy-1 and several Frozen Heart models, notably I think Ice Dancers (also for Performers where they are a null take) and December Acolytes need a slight buff - now this is tricky because you don't want to overtune a summonable model for Raspy-2, but currently why would Raspy-2 summon either of these models over a Silent One in all but corner cases, so you can polish them a touch safely. Alternatively you could rework Raspy-1 herself in such a way to buff specific Frozen Heart models through synergy (although this does nothing for the poor Ice Dancer in Performer crews).
4. I don't think every crew in Arcanists needs a viable keyword healing option, I have no issue with certain crews needing to go OOK for specific tech (including healing) as long as the absence of tech-A is balanced by the abundance of tech-B>D. M&SU (Toni) have limited healing within keyword (specifically Mouse) and other forms of durability, no issue with OOK being there source of healing, Academic/Elemental are also in a fairly solid place overall, but I do think Sandeep (one of the iterations) needs much more synergy with the Academic side, maybe this would be the opportunity give the Academic keyword some sort of limited healing tech.
5. For that matter the Performer keyword needs a touch work as already noted Ice Dancers and I'll also add Performers could use a tiny bit of love, so maybe giving one a little interesting damage tech and the other a form of healing tech would be interesting here.

But I 100% think the default Silent One is an issue, indicative of some slightly wider flaws in several crews. I don't expect perfect balance I'm happy for some models to be niche, but the Silent One as a heal-bot OOK is simply to important (every crew benefits from healing in basically every game) and efficient for cost - so it needs a look. At the same time several notable models in the Arcanist roster basically don't have much of a role at all niche or otherwise, we have a generally great mid-high cost roster but at the lower soul stone end a number of models are basically lacklustre, notably for me Performers, Ice Dancers, Dec Acolytes, Firebrands, Molemen, Shaster Vidya Guard - for each the in keyword or versatile selection simply include models which are much better at the same (or even less) cost. At the same time they offer not enough to secure a particular niche to be taken as much more than as a demonstration or thematic pick. So why ever take them in competitive crew selection.   

The Wyrd store still has 2nd edition models https://giveusyourmoneypleasethankyou-wyrd.com/products/burt-jebsen?_pos=1&_sid=4f90cf6aa&_ss=r

That could be relatively economical, alternatively you can get the 3e box including Gracie from the Wyrd store.

Yeah. Wyrd will avoid at all costs bringing contemporary politics into the game, with damn good reason. Having said that no reason you can't paint a Gremlin up as Boris, he does look like one but taller, I think Bert Jebsen would paint up wonderfully.

On 9/27/2021 at 10:42 AM, solkan said:

• Models that share a keyword with the leader other than ‘Versatile’ (belonging to any faction) at cost
• Versatile models from the crew’s declared faction (only one, even if your leader is dual faction) at cost
• Models from the crew’s declared faction (see above) that don’t share a keyword at +1 SS cost.

and 4. Certain Masters have additional special rules which expand their specific hiring pool in some way, these rules are detailed on the relevant Master's card (and they differ depending on whether you use a Master-title). This is rare but worth noting, Som'er does not have any of this type of rules.

Yeah,

Just as frustrating as hell, totally, 100% not you folks fault. Hell I just got my GenCon shipping notification, so hats off that I'll still be getting my plastic to play with thanks to your efforts.

And as someone pointed out the truly exceptional (and free) Malifaux app totally fills the gap, just mark on the old card that it is errata'd and check the app, alternatively most folks have access to a colour printer, its not ideal but it fills the gap as well.

I love that Wyrd makes print on demand errata cards available. I was under the impression the only location that supplied them was DriveThruRPG, so thought I'd pick some up. Which revealed a serious problem.....

Got this notification from DriveThruRPG:

Hello,

Thank you for your recent order.

Unfortunately we are currently unable to ship card orders to Australia.  As such, we have refunded the cost of your order to your original method of payment.  We apologize for any inconvenience this causes.

Thank you for your business and please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.

Emalyn Knapik
Customer Service
DriveThruRPG.com 

Very, very disappointing. I'm hoping Wyrd will investigate some sort of alternative measure to supply print on demand products to, well I'm guessing the Southern hemisphere, or at least Australia and New Zealand, we might not make up the largest community but we don't want to be abandoned.

Anyone think of an alternative for myself and my fellow Australians?

21 hours ago, Jordon said:

However I'll be the first to admit I'm not a power gamer so I'm completely open to being wrong. 

Also, this.

I haven't gone to an event for the entirety of 3E, I first don't do this often anyway, its not my thing, second live in Sydney, Australia, where to be honest the community is small and what there is is insular, and third Covid, curse thee.

But I am an experienced enough gamer to be able to theorise and while I'm certain the on the table experience will reveal some surprises and I'm very sure different meta's will have different experiences I do think the basic overview we've made is largely valid.

3 hours ago, Jordon said:

Again I think Raspy is the clear winner here as well. Kaltgeist really unlock both versions of Raspy and I'm honestly considering hiring all three of them in either version (well mostly Raspy2 because I doubt I'll be running Raspy1 anymore). 

3 hours ago, Jordon said:

Empyrean Eagle finally gives Marcus a decent low cost hire and schemer. It's leagues better than molemen (not that it's a high bar to hit). Honestly I think Marcus was sorely missing that role so this is a great include for either version. I do think Marcus1 can probably get a bit more from them but adaptive evolution makes them a solid include for Marcus2 as well. Maybe not an auto include

Agreed on these two models. They will see a lot of playing time across both OG and title versions of their respective keywords, partly this is because they are good models that appear to fill a niche, but also partly because the poor options in both keywords model selection means its less a niche than a yawning gulf. The value of these models is directly related to the weaknesses which exist in the keywords, the frequency they are taken will reflect that. At least until an errata changes things in some way.

3 hours ago, Jordon said:

Drudge is pretty impressive for a 2ss model but really seems tailored for Toni2. I'm not sure how often I'd be hiring one of these given how easy they die. A great model but I don't really see them as anything other than a summon. 

Yes. It really is a designed summons. The fact that OG-Ironsides plays in a close-in brawlers bubble by design means that the Drudge just won't have the resilience to survive in the cauldron and they are insignificant so worthless as a scheme runner on the periphery. But it is not like Ironsides lacks for OK hires, she doesn't need the Drudge so it has a comfortable place as a summons.

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

I also think that Deacon is a very solid include for either version of Kaeris. Offensive condition removal was a bad time for Kaeris (especially the golem). I do think he's probably a little more geared for Kaeris2 as she gives him the suit for his pyre teleport ability. I'm not sure if he's an auto include though (which is actually a good thing). I do think he's very solid though. 

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

I'm liking the look of the Rock Hopper more and more. There is a LOT of marker removal with these new titles and this lets you keep those key markers on the table. It also packs quite the punch for its cost. Salvage Site is pretty niche but could be big in the right matchup (nice triggers too). I think it's a good hire for either version of Mei but obviously will work a bit better in Mei2 because how much better she is at supporting her crew. 

Both these models have excellent roles in crews which rely on conditions (Kaeris) or markers (Mei) in prolonging and protecting these game resources for their respective keywords. In a game where the number, ease and importance of marker/condition removal is only increasing these models are likely very high priority, if not auto includes, in their keywords (both OG and title) just to prevent this significant risk of counter-play. Both models are also OK in and of themselves as well.

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

Dorian is okay. I feel like he's a lot more niche than Deacon but still a decent include. I think he's got some interesting tricks but nothing that really shakes up the keyword in the same way as either of the above options. Colette doesn't really need to stick to keyword so I think he's going to have tougher competition comparatively to most. 

Dorian has the same problem, in a different way, as Smuggler Colette; what does he bring that the Performer keyword needs and does not have? The answer is basically not much. He is a mid-cost scheme and distraction enforcer model with a few tricks, nearly the entire Performer keyword can do these things and Dorian's tricks are not particularly remarkable. I can't see a reason not to take him, he is OK for cost, but I also can't see a reason to take him, he doesn't do anything the keyword really needs and doesn't already have options to do. As meh as the Smuggler Colette title was.

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

Metallurgist seems great for either version. I assume you still get access to the equipment regardless of the list. So load him up with a rocket and boss around some robots. Enchanted Steel seems like a pretty big deal against a lot of matchups. 

He's pretty cheap, reasonably resilient and brings some ranged protection, small movement and a command option to the keyword. Can't see many games where he wouldn't be a little useful and at his cost can't see a reason why he's not an efficient crew selection.

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

Wind Golem is still a mystery to me. I like that he brings something more unique than the other golems but I'm a bit worried about its fragility for that cost. I don't think your hiring it for Sandeep1 and honestly I don't think your summoning it either (18ss for 10ss is not the best trade). I think it had more play with Sandeep2 where you can steal it's abilities via academics. 

OK, the most puzzling model is last. The other Golem's are all a variety of beater-tank hybrid, big, tough and they hit hard - which you prefer depends on your preferences and the specific game. The Wind Golem is not that, it has OK damage but for cost it is not a beater, it has good potential survivability but this is a more tricky resilience, based not on wounds and armour but on mobility and ranged defences. What it brings is a large, hard hitting and tough highly mobile model, there are not many models with this damage track and endurance which is a fast, it is possibly one of the only models I could see troubling the First Mate for instance. But how many games does this keyword need a high cost scheme/anti-scheme model? I can see this as a solid selection, particularly against certain opposition who bring their own excellent scheme/anti-scheme models. But in the majority of the games I think grabbing a Wind Gamin gets you your scheme for less cost, and two Wind Gamin can do double the scheming, sure they may dies easier but they are likely fast and resilient enough still to get the essential job done either better (with multiple) or cheaper (with one).    

I agree that the title winners, taking winner as going from weak(er) to stronger kit/crew, are probably (1) Rasputina (her title appears to have legitimate power, unlike her OG version which struggles) (2) Marcus (I think the title is a shade stronger, certainly simpler and love the smash face) and (3) Mei (because I think this title is more reliable than the OG version).

But in terms of actual master power (not playability of a single iteration or cool/fun factor), I think, accounting for the power of both the OG and title crews, then:

1. Hoffman - OG Hoff mecha-armour bubble is very solid (literally) and the new version has the Pylon blocking ability and the nasty irreducible damage, meanwhile the crew is still tough but now less reliant on the bubble. Simply put you can win with either Hoffman and the OG/title choice only makes them stronger.
2. Ironsides - her OG version is reliable and solid, her title is also pretty damn good. So while the pairing is not Hoffman powerful its certainly up there.
3. Kaeris - so again OG Kaeris is a solid, resilient, mobile scheming crew that can kill, great. The title Kaeris is less about mobility but the uncapped damage spiking frankly verges on broken. The reason she's here is because OG Kaeris has better in faction options for a lot of wqhat she does best and title Kaeris, while hideously lethal, is a obvious and thus inflexible move, and this is the heart of her power, and theory-crafting does demonstrate it can probably be avoided (with varying difficulty).
4. Sandeep - OG Sandeep is a summoner, they are always (even after nerf) strong and flexible. Title Sandeep is still solid, with some very powerful and flexible options. Basically gets here because both crews are very solid, with flexibility, so cool.
5. Marcus - While I think the OG version is good it is a little Rube-Goldberg machine and sometimes pulls against itself with limited (obvious) and vulnerable killing pieces and limited (obvious) quite expensive schemers, also Marcus is kinda underwhelming in and of himself, still in the right hands its a solid crew. Title Marcus is a beast, literally, and basically directly addresses the underwhelming Marcus issue of the OG, but the upgrade mechanic is even more difficult to operate perfectly, in good hands this crew is going to crush noobs but against superior players it could go badly fast.
6. Colette - So the OG Colette was amazing pre-nerf and is still likely one of the best scheming crews post-nerf, she is great, and while her crew is limited it is versatile and strong with the Enforcer and Henchmen options. However, title Colette, while she may have some very good options doesn't really bring anything much that screams different in terms of crew/scheme pool/opponent options, it remains to be seen exactly which Colette is stronger, but it appears likely that both versions will do well in similar type games and poorly in similar games. The viable crew across both Colette's remains basically identical.
7. Mei - Basically OG Mei does a lot of what Hoffman does (mecha-armour) and some of what Colette/Kaeris does (super-mobile) and does both generally markedly worse, she is a jack-of-all-trades master but is really to weak to be a reliable single crew into any pool pick. OG-Mei herself is a superb scalpel to kill mid-range models but she cannot reliably take down solid beaters and masters and she over extends very easily, she simply will rarely turn a game, and her crew she may need to frequently. Now I think title Mei is better and more reliable, but she is also a bubble crew with a mobility schtick, so two of her primary abilities, Ride the Rails for superb weird vectors and Safety Inspection in the 8" bubble pull directly against each other. Played carefully either Mei is very good into most game situations, but I think they are both among the least forgiving crews in Arcanists, because this is across both OG and title the Foundry is near the bottom.
8. Rasputina - So the biggest winner is still in the basement I think, simply because she is the biggest winner. OG Rasputina is a weak option, her crew is limited, she is awkward to play while her schtick is obvious and well known and so fairly easy to neutralise, the OG Raspy is (at the moment) a lead weight to her pairing, likely even with multiple Kaltgeist's in every crew she fields. Meanwhile title Rasputina appears to be very good, but, while a huge step forward over OG Raspy, not oppressively powerful, her summoning is great but limited to basically one great (Silent One) and one good (Hoarcat) model, with the others being summon traps in most cases, the Ice Pillars are as solid (in a different way) here as with OG Raspy (with the difference that OG brings little else) and still can cause as many issues for the Raspy crew as the opposition. Overall title Raspy is a great leap upwards but sadly from the depth of the pit that OG Raspy was in that means the pairing is basically a non-starter, I can't see OG being a realistic choice over title in many games at all, so title Raspy gets 8th slot in the pairing power rankings largely off her own efforts.

So thoughts?

I'm very confident I got positions 1 & 2 correct. But I'm less sure on the 3-7 block where I could happily switch certain pairings up or down one (or maybe even two) positions. Then we get to the cellar dwelling Frozen Heart, I think that is correct, but I am hoping that a errata will explode that soon, the large gap between OG and title Raspy really demonstrates the necessity. In every other crew I think the original and titles are reasonably close in power, in most cases playing differently rather than being a radical power shift. I will also say in fairness, the closeness of the Hoffman crews in power and how oppressively powerful title Hoffman looks to be means that is we see an Arcanist nerf I think it needs to be here, and I think the title is the problem and needs to be constrained. I also think that title Kaeris needs to be slightly or sideways nerfed, her Scorching Radiance needs to be limited (ideally damage capped) and maybe give her a tiny buff (say if you end the Burning condition on Kaeris then Scorching Radiance detonates on the model which ended the condition - a backdraft effect, or some other slight buff), but to be honest if you capped Scorching Radiance at dam 4-5 that would still leave it as fearful, but not make it ridiculous. Finally I renew my eternal refrain, buff the Moleman - end anti-Moleman discrimination.            

47 minutes ago, Adran said:

So you feel that the Original colette model is sort of treated as "not there" for the routine performance action

I see your point. 

You treat the first situation as a "the Colette" where there are two models intrinsically linked so what effects one also effects the other. So it is, in effect, not the only Colette, but a linked projection of an image of Colette.

This is a two Colette's but only one model. Which frankly sucks.

In contrast my framing treated the decoy/dove as a projection of Colette, not linked to Colette but a temporary (for the duration of the Routine Performance) a pseudo-Colette, where the pseudo-Colette is in all ways Colette, with the original as an anchor the image will return to. 

In this there is one effective Colette, where the other is a temporary anchor for the projection. I think mechanics wise this is cleaner. But I do see your point, but this severely weakens Routine Performance, it is a strong interpretation but it drives the discussion into either severely limiting and complicating Routine Performance where there is only one Colette in two places, subject to all sorts of combing and stacking game effects, and thus I agree it seems a poor option.

But in contrast that leaves the alternative two Colette framing of the decoy/dove becomes "a Colette", separate and distinct from the true-Colette whose Routine Performance created it. This option seems exceptionally powerful, it would transfer across (nor carry back) no conditions, it would only be subject to limited table effects (notably you could toss a decoy into hazardous terrain and Routine Performance into that terrain with imperviousness) and it potentially allows you to summon three Doves/Colette turn, which seems not rules as intended. I mean I love Colette, I like the idea but it seems a bit broken.

In this case an interesting question arises, if Colette Routine Performances to a Dove, the a(lternative) Colette is not the true-Colette what happens to the wounds and conditions on that Dove at the time the Routine Performance commences? Any wounds and conditions suffered during the Routine Performance cannot effect the distinct Colette, so do they effect the Dove (which unlike the Decoy can be effected)? What if the Dove is stunned or staggered is this the case for the a(lternaitve) Colette then?

The fact that Colette can target Doves with Routine Performance is what really adds layers of complexity, it multiples the 'what if this or that' scenarios.

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

Personally I think its "a Colette" and using a dove as a decoy marker won't damage the dove, or allow the dove to gain conditions. 

The problem is exactly as Adran stated. The key difference being is I think the intention (no rational basis for thinking this, just opinion) is as the decoy/dove acts as the Colette.

But I do disagree with some parts,

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

If the Decoy becomes "the Colette" then

Damage done to the decoy will damage Colette.

The Decoy is engaged if either the decoy or Colette is engaged. 

No, the Colette only has one table location, she is not in two places at once, she is only engaged (or in AOE's or Auras) if the decoy/dove was in a position to be engaged.

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

if the Decoy becomes "a Colette"

The decoy is only engaged if it is engaged. 

Whereas if it is a Colette then there is effectively two Colette's one is 'the Colette' and the other is the a(lternative) Colette produced by Routine Performance and either, both or neither Colette's may be subject to table AOE's and engagements.

Otherwise I 100% agree.

I've explained it as those game effects which attach to the model (damage, conditions) which will always follow to distinct individual model which has that damage or those conditions.

Or

The game effects which are based upon table location, such as AOE's, Auras, Pulses, Hazardous Terrain and other table location effects, these impact whichever models which are within the effect as it exists on the table, it can impact multiple models and models can move into and out of these effects, they do not follow the model. 

So for example if a piece of hazardous terrain which inflicted the Burning +1 condition but also provided concealment. Any model (initially with no conditions) which enters the terrain gets Burning +1, the condition attaches to the model, if it leaves the terrain it is still subject to the condition, but it is not the concealment. While in the terrain it has Burning +1 and concealment. If its activation ends outside the terrain and it does not re-enter later in the game it will not accrue any additional Burning (nor benefit from concealment), if it re-enters the terrain then it the terrain effects occur again. If the model chooses to stay in the terrain and ends its activation inside the hazardous then it has Burning +1 and concealment, next turn (assuming it has not been moved out of the terrain by other effects), it will start its turn in the hazardous gaining another Burning +1 (so now potentially will be Burning +2 if nothing reduced its Burning from the previous round) and it will be concealed, if it moves out of the terrain it loses concealment and retains its Burning (+1 or +2), if it stays in the terrain it retains concealment and next round when it activates the sequence starts again. The difference between game effects which attach to the model and in-game AOE/Auras which are based upon table location. 

37 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

i think that "once per turn" is the "larger" version of "once per activation", and as the activation hasn't changed to another model,

This is 100% true if the decoy/dove is treated as the Colette model during Routine Performance. But if in contrast if the decoy/dove is treated as a model with Stats as though it were this model (but crucially it is not the model) then the new model gets a new once/...... suite. I agree that it should be interpreted as that a pseudo-Colette is performing the action and this pseudo-Colette is treated in every way as the model of Colette, thus the once/turn is locked if it has already been used. But I can see an argument for a differing interpretation, that it is a separate and distinct model. An argument that needs to be resolved.

45 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

I still hold to the argument, that the marker/dove is not a marker/dove during the action so it has mv 6, is significant, has don't mind me etc... how else could it take an action. I really think people are overcomplicating this... same way, how is cassandra a problem, once she takes the action routine performance it is she that is the model and reference for the action and hence she is "this model", so colette card is not in play during cassandras activation for any other part than copying "routine performance"...

I agree.

45 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

I agree, though I do not think the dove is a dove during the action, so it can sustain more than 2 damage, then when the action ends and pseudo colette as you call her (I like that choice of words) reverts to a dove, the dove sustains the damage then and dies if 2 or damage was given to it while being colette.

But the question is why does the damage revert to the dove, if it is treated as Colette (the pseudo-Colette) then does not the damage sustained (which is like conditions attached to the model) travel "back" with Colette? Again this is the question I am wrestling with above. With Routine Performance what and where is Colette and what and where is the decoy/dove, almost any interpretation can be made to present a rules in play dissonance.

So need to say this to focus my thinking. The critical issues when Routine Performance is used are (in all cases Colette may be Cassandra during the Upstage>Routine Performance action):

• "Where" is Colette on the table in relation to AOE effects such as   engagement ranges and hazardous terrain, is she in the position where she was when she commenced the Routine Performance OR is she in the position of the decoy/dove during the Routine Performance.
• "What" is the Colette model for game purposes which attach to a model (regardless of table location) such as damage and conditions. Does the decoy/dove assume the full characteristics of the Colette model (bringing the relevant conditions and damage with it) and thus be able to gain damage and conditions during Routine Performance OR is the decoy/dove always a distinct thing, separate from Colette but adopting "her" stat card, thus distinct from damage and conditions and where damage and conditions will not apply for the Routine Performance. This is further important for the Once per Turn rule on the trigger for Phantasmal Prism (only for Colette, Cassandra cannot do this action during Upstage) Close Up Magic, if it is the Colette model then the trigger is only ever available once, but if the decoy/dove is not the Colette model then by rule each different model can perform Once/Turn events (allowing the summons potentially to occur with each Routine Performance>Phantasmal Prism+Close Up Magic Trigger).
• "Where" is the decoy/dove in terms of table location (is it removed to a temporary 'null' space or does it remain on the table and subject to table effects - if it remains on table does it remain where it is [effects there apply] OR does it 'switch' temporarily to Colette's location [being effected by the table state in this new position])? 
• "What" is the decoy/dove in terms of marker (decoy) or model (dove) in relation to Colette, does the decoy/dove temporarily co-exist with Colette (so two models simultaneously exist either switching or in the same location) OR instead does Colette replace the decoy/dove (into a null space) for the Routine Performance duration OR does the decoy/dove assume a wholly illusory Colette Stat Card, so the decoy/dove subsumes the Colette stats but remains either a marker (decoy) or a model (dove). Wounds and conditions will only attach to a recognised "what".

For Routine Performance we need to answer where is Colette in terms of table state and location and what is Colette as a model, and we also need to establish the same where and what answers for the decoy/dove target of the Performance.    

5 hours ago, Maladroit said:

The more problematic issue (or maybe this is good) is that the Dove remains a Dove and is acting as pseudoColette at the same time. Implications - things like black-blood damages all models in LOS and range, pseudoColette and the Dove are both in LOS and range and both take damage, same with moving through hazardous resulting in damage/conditions, both pseudoColette and the Dove take damage, same for gaining conditions from hazardous aura's or terrain. That doesn't exactly clear up how defensive trigger damage will work, but I am leaning towards pseudoCollete taking the damage and reducing her health - I don't see what rule means that the Dove takes any damage - either during damage allocation or when the action ends. 

Now this is a truly interesting conundrum. 🤫🤔🤨😪 

This really does need an errata/FAQ. As you are correct, on reading the card the decoy marker- which critically in this case may be a Dove - is the "target" and the wording is"

Target may take a General or Attack Action, as though it were this model (and using this model's Stat Card). Note this wording means that Colette's stat card for Colette and Cassandra's stat card when she uses Upstage as I read it.  

This means the target (Dove) does not vanish, the target may take, so it does not disappear, it may still be effected by AOE damage, including from 1" Black Blood. A Decoy marker is safe, it can't take damage, it has no health/wounds pool, while it is destructible this is not a damage mechanic.

Which means a difficult situation emerges:

1. If the Decoy/Dove is still has a distinct existence during Routine Performance, which the card wording indicates is true, then it should take damage.
2. If the Decoy/Dove is not in existence it can't take any damage, if a Dove, but this needs to be clearly specified.
3. If the pseudo-Colette 'appears' (as I have previously stated is the interpretation I consider strongest) then she should take damage, which means is [1] is also true then damage is applied twice. Seems wrong, reads right.
4. If the action is that a true illusory Colette appears then it will not take damage, it is not actually there, the Decoy/Dove just 'gains' its stat card.

I think intent would seem to push for either [1] & [4] to happen, but this has issues for does is illusory Colette impacted by AOE effects from her original (the actual Collette's) position. So if actual Colette is engaged she cannot use her Phantasmal Prism even if the Decoy/Dove is totally in the open and likewise an engaged Decoy/Dove could use the  Phantasmal Prism as long as Colette was not engaged. Also the illusory Colette is not impacted by any Conditions gained as a 'result' of the action. It finally critically opens the whole Once/turn issue of the Close up Magic trigger, because the model performing the action is not, strictly Colette. Seems wrong.

Alternatively is [2] & [3] are true then this means the more intuitive circumstance exists where the pseudo-Colette is impacted by the AOE table situation which would apply to the decoy/dove, but, you could not Focus the Dove as it is not 'there' to Focus, the focus action would simply impact pseudo-Colette. Although I guess you could move Colette and then if she replaces back does the decoy/dove replace where she is (after moving) of where it was (when it 'vanished' temporarily?).

Neither of these is wholly satisfactory, although I think [2] & [3] likely represents the better rules as intended (but needing slight clarification) and [1] & [4] appears to better represent the strict card wording (but raises many more problems).

The other alternative are even more troublesome [1] & [3] as stated represents double damage jeopardy, which does not seem the intent, although is a likely rare (and avoidable) trap if this is the interpretation. 

While if [2] & [4] are true the ability is potentially hugely more powerful, with no AOE's (although this may include positive ones) which impact the decoy/dove applying, no conditions or damage results impacting the action at all and (again) a question over once/turn actions (although arguably here it is true that once/turn is limited because while the Colette model isn't strictly performing the action neither is any other model).

I really and truly cannot see any simple way out of this rules/language maze where some corner case issue does not arise. Certainly you could clarify it completely in an FAQ but with all the rules which can potentially crop up this may require pages of caveats.

It does need an FAQ to broadly clarify, as soon as possible ideally.

I will be house ruling (and clarifying before each game, advocating in support of) that my opponent and ! play the rules as [2] & [3], as this seems the least likely to be problematic and the most 'fair and balanced' compromise of rules as written and intended applying to corner cases. But yeah this seems to be a genuine rules interaction trap.  

But I am afraid my [2] & [3] compromise raises a whole host of other potential issues. Still the best solution I see until this is clarified is that you communicate clearly with your opponent how the rule should be played and hopefully the difficult interactions are so rare its never an issue anyway (hopefully).

And again, good to work these issues out here and now, because I'd hate to ruin a game by arguing at the table, hopefully this means a little quick communication, clarification and agreement at the start (based on this topic) can prevent that. At least until we gat an FAQ and can then debate the issues the solution raises in their own right.

So, I'm not competitive. In the OG-Masters my most favourite to least (based on a mix of fun, cool and powerful) was as follows (and this does impact my view on titles, the new titles each directly compare to the OG versions and the more I like the OG-Master the tougher time the title has to seize my attention); (1) Colette (2) Hoffman (3) Kaeris (4) Rasputina (5) Ironsides (6) Marcus (7) Sandeep & (8) Mei. 

Thus my Arcanist Burns summary, from most anticipated/favourite title, to my least interested/excited about:

Great

1. Mei, love this title, seems like it will be great fun (question open to how strong she plays, I also love Mah so this is an auto buy)
2. Rasputina, ups her power, gives her more diverse play, excellent new minions (question about what they do for the old Frozen Heart models and OG-Raspy, which outside Silent One and Beast of December are largely disappointing, even with summoning, don't mind Euripides so auto buy)
3. Ironsides, again loving this, I think this could be the best single master option in Arcanist, both versions are strong, they play differently, great (question on Drudge durability and power, not huge on Anya will likely get still)

The OK

1. Sandeep, don't mind this title, really intrigued by Four Winds Golem (biggest downside here is no Academic love and I don't like Shenlong, this is my first might buy)
2. Marcus, I love brawl and bash Marcus, but still underwhelmed by his crew, specially Molemen (the lesser Beasts really need love, biggest hit is that I really dislike Lord Cooper, might buy)
3. Kaeris, so she seems to be a beast, I'm actually a bit worried about the negative play of her potential massive alpha inferno, really need to see whether her power is locked up in this or if its a storm in a tea cup and she's good without just super combusting enemies (generally I like the Wildfire crew so even though I dislike Reva I have purchased this at GenCon, helps that I like Deacon and he is Arcanist)

The disappointment (so unsurprising that my disappointments were my two favourite OG-Masters, high bar to meet)

1. Hoffman, I actually like the idea but his Pylon mechanic is as troublesome as hell, it could lead to terrain-marker trap play which sucks, and equally with the Pylons being destroyed he is hugely handicapped, looks like a tentative on-table problem (I have purchased this at GenCon, really want to see if the title is as functionally troublesome as it has been theoretically, I love the Hoffman crew it is fun and independently powerful, don't mind the Von Schill crew, that also helped my decision)
2. And here she is, sadly from first to worst - Colette, I just am so disappointed, the Performer crew was already a bit of a take these few all-stars and go, and Smuggler does nothing at all to change this, her card is troublesome, her play seems more or less the same as OG-Colette game state wise, I was simply hoping for something really mixing it up and I got what felt like a artificial sweetener version of sugary Colette goodness, Smuggler adds nothing I like (now I do like Dorian a lot and the Pandora title I love and Woe was already a crew I occasionally slummed into, so despite this its an auto buy box but for Pandora Tyrant-Torn - which feels wrong)

Ironically two of my 100% favourite OG-Master and title-Master combinations I will be getting by default; I love Mah and Mecha-Mah and also Pandora and Tyrant-Torn and think these two represent the best of what Malifaux Burns can offer (I also love the Lucius title but loath Nexus so passing on this, loved the Ophelia and Perdita titles and like both masters OG, so picked this box up). Finally Raspy has convinced me to check out Euripides, I'd been on the fence with this crew but love Abominable and Old One Eye looks intriguing + the Kaltgeist is amazing (please Wyrd give OG-Raspy and her older crew models a little love, that could make Raspy compete with Ironsides as the best and most rounded single master original/title combo).   

So based on the above my Arcanist Master tier based on OG and title is best to worst:

1. Rasputina/Abominable
2. Ironsides/President Toni
3. A knot here of several close calls, I'll loosely say [a] Mei/Foreman [b] Colette/Smuggler [c] Hoffman/Inventor then [d] Kaeris/Phoenix
4. Then pulling up the rear as jointly a little mediocre on both OG and title, loosely, [a] Marcus/Alpha [b] Sandeep/Font of Magic

So if the primary goal was to shake my Arcanist meta choices up, objective achieved.   

So the final tally was:

1. Charles Hoffman the Inventor, paired with Outcasts (Von Schill) with the Metallurgist Augmented keyword
2. Marcus the Alpha, paired with Explorers (Lord Cooper) with the Empyrean Eagle Chimera keyword
3. Toni Ironsides Union President and the new Arcanist model the Drudge, paired with Explorers (Anya Lycarayen)
4. Kaeris Reborn and the new Arcanist Enforcer Deacon Hillcrest, paired with Resurrectionists (Reva Cortinas)
5. Mei Feng the Foreman, paired with Bayou (Mah Tucket) with the Rockhopper Foundry keyword
6. Smuggler Colette, paired with Neverborn (Pandora) with Dorian Crowe Performer keyword
7. Abominable Rasputina, paired with Neverborn (Euripides) and the Kaltgeist Frozen Heart keyword
8. Sandeep Desai Font of Magic and the new Arcanist Enforcer the Four Winds Golem, paired with Ten Thunders (Shenlong)

So we got paired with Explorers x2, Neverborn x2, Bayou x1, Outcasts x1, Resurrectionists x1 and Ten Thunders x1

We got 3 new Arcanist models; the Drudge a Minion (3), the Four Winds Golem an Enforcer and Deacon Hillcrest an Enforcer. The other 5 models are out of faction keyword.   

Concerning the wonderfully useful Malifaux App. So wondering when this will happen, and how it will be implemented.

1. When do we see the (first) Malifaux Burns content?
2. Will we see content as the models are released (so we get content with the models being available), hope not, or will Malifaux Burns content be released in a single big push (so everything in the book is available in the App), hoping so?
3. How will the App deal with the titles, will it be twice as many masters under that tab or will each master now have a method to select and toggle between OG and title?
4. Will the App actually catch fire?

All important questions that need answering. I wants to play with my App lists until someone yells at me to get on with my mundane life.

8 hours ago, Jordon said:

Then there is the added headache with the fact that nearly all her models are shared with other keywords. Both the Hoarcat and Blessed are shared with Marcus (mostly Marcus1). Gamin and Golem are shared with Sandeep. Ice Dancers are shared with Colette. Acolytes, Silent Ones, Kaltgeist and Snowstorm are really the only pure December specific models.

So now you have all these layers of balance to try and achieve.

1. Make it a good hire with Raspy1
2. Make it a good hire with Raspy2
3. Make sure it's not too good with the summon upgrade
4. Make it a good hire with shared keyword

Thinking on this.

I'll summarise what's below first;

• Buff Raspy-1 (suggestions below)
• Major Buff for Acolyte (suggestions below)
• Minor Buff for Ice Dancer
• Minor Buff for Ice Gamin
• Leave the Ice Golem alone (or give it a movement buff when near an Ice Pillar)
• Leave the Hoarcat alone
• Leave the Silent One alone (actually I'd make its Healing Energy once/turn for non-Frozen Heart, an tiny OOK debuff)
• Leave the Kaltgeist alone
• Give Snowstorm Shielded when it activates near a Ice Pillar

So first their is a clear gap appearing in sentiment between the power and playability of Rasputina-1 (poor) and Rasputine-2 (much improved). So I think Raspy-1, who was already a Arcanist low tier, clearly does need a slight buff. I'd like even more Ice Pillar creation, maybe a trigger on her attack(s), and a across keyword ability to let her crew ignore Ice Pillars as blocking and cover terrain, and buff Shatter first make Frozen Heart immune to effect (or even heal 1), and then increase its range to 8" or 10", and have a trigger (I think ) on Shatter to allow her to place in base contact with the shattering Ice Pillar. This makes her more dangerous and more about the pillars than Raspy-2, it gives her some teleport manoeuvrability and it slightly buffs her crew mobility.

Snow Storm might like a very small buff.

Kaltgeist appear clearly solid.

Ice Gamin and the Golem may need a slight buff, but only alight. They are already a weaker selection for Sandeep as well compared to the Metal Gamin/Golem - for +Def and face smashing, or the Fire Gamin/Golem - for +Conditions and face smashing. So the Ice Elementals could sustain a SLIGHT improvement in both Frozen Heart and Elementals. The biggest issue for the Ice Elementals is how much better the Kaltgeist is for its cost, the choice is not even debatable (especially over Gamin). The Gamin really does need a buff, not sure exactly what.

The Silent One is actually borderline to good, it sees a lot of action at +1SS OOK, I'm not advocating a nerf, it's not really OP, but it is very, very good.

The Ice Dancer is in the same place as the Ice Elementals for Colette crews I have never taken it, never seen someone deliver a powerful argument for taking it. The Ice Dancer, even more than the Elementals (which do see some play in both keywords) could use a solid buff, here I would suggest something on her card to further improve her, reducing her SS cost would work maybe for Raspy but less so for Colette where she'd simply displace the Showgirl totally (unless the Showgirl was buffed as well). But the Dancer needs a buff, not sure what exacly.

I think the Hoarcats are borderline, they are OK, I don't think they are a great take in Marcus (either) or Raspy-1, but they do appear useful situational summons. So if, if you do buff them I'd look at something either very, very slight or more maybe buff them through something on Raspy-1 card. But honestly I'd leave them, let the meta's of titles shake out some more, its fair that certain models will see much more action with one or other master iteration.

This brings us to the real troublesome model, the December Acolyte, clearly a poor choice in Raspy-1 and Raspy-2 based on community input. This model is, fortunately, entirely Frozen Heart so only impacts directly in this keyword, and the model is also clearly poorly regarded in both iterations of Rasputina, so improvement can happily stretch across OG and title. This I think could start with -1SS cost AND perhaps a slight buff (I'd like something which means they ignore Ice Pillars as cover) or alternatively a fairly major buff (say Shielded when activating near Ice Pillars, +built in to melee and ranged, +ignore Ice Pillars as cover). The Acolytes really do need a buff and I think it is pretty safe to do so. 

58 minutes ago, Moondog said:

"target may take a general or attack action as though it were this model". That isn't saying you should treat the marker as Colette.

Yeah I partially disagree. I agree the marker does not "become" Colette. But 'as though it were this model' means you treat the marker as though it was Colette. It is not Colette, but it is treated as though it was Colette. For this reason Concentrate would work (although as you state a marker cannot have a condition, so as soon as the Routine Performance ends the condition slides off the decoy marker, it would have focus for the nebulous moment the marker is still treated as Colette, but that is pointless).

And yes, the close up magic trigger was critical in starting this discussion. In this interpretation the dove/decoy is treated as though it were Colette, so if Colette has used the once per turn trigger then she could not use it again this turn, by extension something treated as though it was Colette could not utilise the trigger either.

I have already stated, I think of the dove/decoy as an illusion of Colette, with all of the characteristics attached to the model itself. But critically not those effects which impact the real Colette based on her location on the table, the illusory Colette is in one location, the real Colette another and auras and AOEs impact each separately based on their respective locations.

Yeah the Backup Assistant will not be long for the table once folks realise that (1) he's a card cycling machine (2) he can clear conditions in an emergency (3) he damages himself to power his card cycle (4) Df 4 Wp 4 and 5 Wds (5) you can replace him with a model in the crew you've already lost.

He will have a huge target on him, he is as fragile as hell and to be honest if he does make it to round 3+ he's almost certainly going to be replaced (if only to get a significant model to scheme). At 4SS he is superb value if you can just get him to that 3rd round. In most games he'll make his value even if he dies by end turn 1 with a couple of extra cards drawn and one more on his inevitable demise.

I can see a Bokor or other healer being camped near him, to see if they can stretch his lifespan out. His synergy with the Bokor is off the charts.

Also a lot more marker interaction and destruction in the new titles, that may impact the play of Zipp-1