alansmithee

Well if I'd have known it was that easy, I would've asked for more...

When you announce you will have changes to your rule system every two months, it creates expectations. It makes people more inclined to consider anything in the gameplay which doesn't fit in with however an individual feels the game should be as a flaw in the rules that needs changed, regardless of if it's actually unbalancing or not. This, coupled with what I've seen in pretty much every game ever where there's a much greater tendency to cuddle everything (and the fact that getting traction behind calls for cuddles is typically easy) rather than actually improve items that are deemed too weak, is a bad thing. The flipside is that when there aren't changes, you'll get people complaining about that as well since they've been made to expect changes every two months. And I think the fact that there are apparently numerous things people are complaining about less than two full months after the official release would seem to indicate that my attitude isn't entirely unfounded. Two months hardly seems enough to have identified numerous issues with the system, unless the system is extremely flawed. And as for people overreacting but not Wyrd, I'd say that's not entirely accurate as Wyrd I think has demonstrated that they do take a lot of input from the community here. They may not overreact to the same extent, but if the community they listen to overreacts and they listen, it's not much different. I'm not saying it will or won't happen with certainty, but I would say that caution is advised. I would like to actually see when changes are made, some reasoning given for them and something showing the thought process behind the changes. I did not follow the previous beta, but almost since the book was released at Gencon it seems people have been complaining about Nexus. Was this a matter of something being changed between beta testing and the book being printed, or not enough evidence given beforehand, or what? Also something to consider is that not everyone follows the forums to the same extent (or in some cases, at all). Having numerous frequent changes that must be kept up on, especially early in a game's lifespan, can cause a lot of confusion in players who suddenly find out in a tournament, or even just playing a different playgroup, that what is printed on their (relatively new) cards isn't actually how they work. And again, I clearly said I wasn't saying the cuddles were bad or unnecessary. And I do appreciate that they're at least willing to look at their rules and change things. Also, I'm unsure if you realize this, but saying "no offense intended" isn't really a carte blanche method of getting past the requirement for civil discussion. I'd even argue the opposite-typically it's only used when what you're about to say is offensive and rather than not being offensive, you'd just prefer to dodge the consequences of being offensive. No offense intended, of course

I'd be a lot more pleased about these bimonthly updates if I believed they'd be used as little more than cuddles to whatever is considered popular that month. It just seems to open the door for a lot of kneejerk overreacting to whatever beat you last. The attitude around here seems to be way to accepting of just immediately calling something "OP" rather than seeing if it's really too strong, or looking for answers in other ways. Also in my experience, cuddles fly a lot easier than any buffs would towards things that are weaker. And of course there is a chance that some things will be missed in playtesting, and I'm not even that the cuddles that were released were bad. But I do think it's worrisome when a book that's been released roughly six weeks is already apparently deemed to have had game-breaking issues. The other issue is even if you know something is too strong, it may not even be the something you initially believe. Also if they are going to be bimonthly faqs/cuddles, I would also think some sort of epub format would be appreciated. As of now, there's only a small handful of cards that have been changed, and a few minor rule tweaks. But what happens after 6 months of these updates? Will I need a loose-leaf binder to drag along with my rule manual, and my still-relevant cards?

I agree almost entirely with what you're saying here. Book two really added a lot, but I think it's somewhat created a balance problem. There are a lot of very unique masters (and models), and oftentimes they seem to just be...better than other things. And I do think it's extremely difficult to get the balance right-I'd say most of the book two masters (and minions, for that matter) tend towards the definite strong side, whereas those in books 3 and 4 seem somewhat weaker (of course, that's largely in comparison to book 2). And I totally agree that it's tedious keeping track of rats, wounds on rats, rat activations, new rats, old rats, rats rats rats rats. That's actually a large reason why I rarely play him. That being said, I think playing against him is actually a very unique experience, and I wish more masters had such a strong unique feel. ---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ---------- There was so semantics nor diversion, as most objective observers would find what you initially wrote a thinly veiled troll at best. Although I do appreciate the points (even though I didn't realize we were being scored). And although you may be right about it being all opinion, when that opinion is being used as justification for changing rules of how the game plays, it should be held to higher standards. It does hearten me to learn that even with your many, many posts you still recognize the need to try to make sure your opinions and posting is neither offensive or irritating, such self-awareness is quite rare and commendable (+5 points for you!). Also I'm heartened to hear your needlessly condescending tone and cliquish behavior isn't anything personal directed at me, but just your natural inclination. Trust me, I lost many seconds of sleep wondering what some anonymous person who seemed to be contributing nothing to the discussion thought of my posting, or the posting of anyone who lacked a certain arbitrary number of posts so I'll rest that much easier tonight!

I agree that he is harder to play against than most masters. I don't think he's significantly easier to play than most masters, and would actually say that building a crew and playing him can be quite challenging, especially if you go past the base models. I don't see how either of these things equates to being more powerful, however (especially if he's easier to play, that seems like a plus rather than a negative). I'd also agree that he's somewhat unfun to play, but that's mainly because I hate keeping track of 30 rats constantly dying/activating/popping back up. My main fear is that all the masters with unique interactions are going to end up eventually cuddled, as they tend to be more powerful. And the way I see it, a lot of the power isn't necessarily intrinsic to the masters themselves, but in their crews and the crew interactions. And more so than the other book 2 masters, Hamlin seems tied into his minions that he can take. Without a lot of the things he provides, they'd be worth nowhere near their points (well, maybe not Nix). ---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ---------- I'm sorry, I didn't notice the postcount requirement for disagreeing with a commonly held opinion here. I'll make sure to keep that in mind in the future, as soon as I find said postcount requirement. Although it might be difficult, as I've personally tended to favor quality over quantity. I do understand if that isn't your preferred method of communication on these boards. Also, as a henchman I hope you're this welcoming to all new individuals, it's a great way to grow the game!

This is in regards to your first paragraph. The "idea" you convey is part of the problem with the knee jerk forums attitude-when they lose to someone it's "that master is overpowered" and in no way reflects upon their own ability at the game (which is doubtlessly amazing), but when something is obviously extremely hurt by cuddles (alps, dreamer, nekima) and people stop playing with them it's due to the people who previously played that model's obvious lack of skill. Maybe, just maybe, if more people showed some of this skill when playing against the more challenging masters, there wouldn't be the need for cuddles? Naaaaaaaah, that's way too hard. Better run to the board and cry "NPE! NPE! NPE!" until Wyrd takes care of the problem for you. FYI the problem with your example of Dreamer's threat range is that LCB is extremely fragile in melee, so even if you do get him somewhere (admittedly not difficult), he takes something out then gets pasted by anything even moderately melee oriented. ---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ---------- I do agree that Hamlin is difficult to beat. I also don't think he's problematic. There's always gonna be some masters who are better. That's just the nature of the game. Also (as I said before) I think a lot of the complaints are due to not knowing how to play against him. Even in complaint threads there's tons of complaints from people who say they've never played as or against him.

You've definitely picked an...interesting group of masters to play. Hamlin (and really, all the outcast masters) has a very unique playstyle that unless people know how to deal with it will likely cause them to lose and complain about it being a "NPE". He's definitely strong, but the whining about him is really out of line with his effectiveness. So, if you play with people who are more causal and/or don't like varying their strategies or thinking about the game much, you'll likely get a lot of complaints about him. As an aside, since you picked all book 2 masters, prepare for 1 month after Hamlin is cuddled into near-uselessness for the forums to explode again about how much of a "NPE" either Kirai or Colette is (which is what happened with Hamlin after the Dreamer whining had finished) so you might want to keep that in the back of your mind. All your masters are extremely good (well, not the Dreamer anymore but 3 of 4) and it's likely that you'll get complaints about them all. Of course, your group might not be so knee-jerk as the forums typically are so you might just be fine there.

"Unfun" is a term that gets so overused here that's it's essentially meaningless. Especially since what is "fun" for one individual can differ wildly from another. Instead of saying "I can't beat X, cuddle it" by saying it's "unfun" it's no longer an issue of being anything you can do about it because the very nature of the model in question causes bad things. Also, the power of everything is relative. I don't see why it's supposedly fine to have bad models there to challenge yourself (when facing average models), but having strong models is bad. Wouldn't facing strong models with merely average models also be challenging yourself? It seems like what you're saying is that average models are also unfun, since relative to bad models they're also more powerful. And I do agree that book two masters are much faster than book 1 (and book 4 for that matter, from what I can tell). And due to the synergy with their crews, the entire crews are in general much faster. But, isn't this a situation where it would be better to add more synergy to book 1 crews, rather than cuddle book 2? Also making something that was interesting unplayable by Cuddling it is essentially the same as removing it. Nekima is about 4 points too overcosted and was never too strong to begin with (the real culprit was lilitu). Alps are roughly 3 points too high and are definitely more manageable, in that any one who fields them is essentially throwing away points (fwiw this is one of the models I'd put in the far tail end of underpowered). And the dreamer cuddles imo did take away a lot of his feel. Not being able to act again after being buried is a huge blow (which is the big thing I have issue with). All those are more fun to face, in the way it's more fun to play basketball against grade-school kids rather than college. And I hope the tone wasn't too harsh (since I didn't intend it to be), but I think talking about "fun" is just a big red herring. If something is truly too powerful and is distorting the game environment, steps should be taken. But just because something is more powerful doesn't instantly mean it's too good. And I think talking about "unfun" helps create an environment where instead of players actually trying to get better and exhausting options before declaring something really unbalanced, it makes people hear something is "broken" and then jump on forums to complain the first time they lose to it. In the various cuddle Hamlin threads, there are people in there saying he's broken, unfun, etc who admit to never have played with or against him! And it just seems that the community here, seeing that the designers do actually listen and make changes (which is a good thing) are much more willing to just say something's broken than to actually try to innovate or think of alternate ways of winning (especially in comparison with a game like 40K where you know the designers not only don't listen but seem actively hostile to online communities, their customers, and everyone else) ---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ---------- People didn't complain about Coppelius making Alps, they complained about the alp bomb. And if someone wants to waste Coppelius' turn attacking their own models and wasting eyes (which he can also use to heal) I don't see the problem if they get to make a minor significant model. Dreamer I fully admit was extremely powerful and likely needed to be reigned in for the reasons you mentioned (although I DO think the degree which he was better than other masters is greatly overstated). And Nekima was used in exactly one gimmick list to buff one model which caused her to get hammered (which to me seems extremely bizarre, since even without the cuddle she's overcosted outside of some very specific interactions).

I would disagree with that assessment of the power level. I'd say there's way more things on the lower end of the power level than you give credit to. Honestly I think it's mostly due to the fact that more players will complain about models that are too strong than models are too weak. If you smash some dude using weaker models, you're not gonna complain. But if LCB tables you on turn 4, what will you do? Run to the boards yelling "cuddle! cuddle" And along with that, I do agree that playtesting is difficult. One of my biggest worries though, is that it seems Wyrd is maybe going too far in the other direction. After LCB got cuddled (and fwiw I think the entirety of the cuddles were too far, but that's neither here nor there), I went and checked the old thread after alps (another time where I think it was way overboard, although they did need some tweaking) and Nekima (who's nearly useless now, and was only abusive in some limited situations previously)got cuddled , and everyone was talking about how everything was fine, balance was where it should be, etc. And some of those very same people were in the LCB thread saying how needed his cuddles were. The problem is that there will always be one or two masters who are the "best". And my fear with the recent LCB cuddles and the oddly gleeful way the people in charge of rules talk about upcoming Hamelin cuddles is that anytime a champion is "better", they'll immediately be cuddled (and most likely, turned extremely weak). Like, I'm already prepared for 1 month of "Yeah man, game's totally perfect now :)" and 1 month later "OMG cuddle Kirai/Colette they're too strong!!11!!!" after Hamelin's been wrecked. And going back to the models that have been cuddled, it seems mostly book 2. Whereas what worries me about that is the big thing that book 2 has isn't just "power", but synergy between models. One of the biggest things about the book 2 masters is just how well they work with their intended crews. And on top of this, they often have different or more interesting mechanics. So by Cuddling more "powerful" models, you're also taking out a lot of the more interesting mechanics, tactics, etc and reducing the game's options.

See, I think you're missing a lot of subtle things that are happening, which is probably why you're not picking up on it. I don't see why you think Leveticus and Zoraida are planning on fighting avatars, since the whole riders theme is an end of the world trope as old as the bible. In book 3 they start alluding to the fact that LCB might himself be a tyrant, and also that the box Pandora carries has links. Same for Kirai's spirit. Even the mysterious symbol on the constructs that Hoffman and Justice investigate is very vague. You're also forgetting Kirai in book 2 as part of that whole battle (even if you're somehow claiming Hoffman and Justice weren't part of it). Also you seem to not have noticed that other people have voiced similar (if not identical) feelings about the whole tyrant plots.

I agree, that there has to be trials, and people should fail. However, there's already a mechanism to drive this-the other masters that they strive against. That also leaves room for them to fail without being utterly destroyed and then deus ex machina'd back to life. You also don't run into the problem of a lot of fantasy works of having villains that aren't actually convincing. If they NEVER win, it's really hard to take them as some superpowered otherworldy threat to the existence of everything (as they seem to be painting them in the fluff). Also, tension builds by letting people see glimpses, hear rumors. Not showing them constantly almost (well, not really almost) gaining REAL ULTIMATE POWER and then randomly failing. It just gets tired, imo. See, this I think is where we disagree the most. The story I thought was interesting because instead of all fighting the foo of plot device they all were enacting their own schemes. That's what drove the interaction: the world they built and the power struggle within it. How I saw it was the Guild was essentially opposed to everyone. Arcanists worked with everyone, but were only using them to essentially try to supplant the Guild. Neverborn hated everyone else because they were all seen as invaders. And Ressurectionists were opposed to the Guild (since their art was outlawed) and Neverborn (invaders, along with the whole jealousy/contempt angle for people improperly using their ancient arts) and had an uneasy peace with the Arcanists. That's all you really need. And this is a big part of my problem. If small-scale skirmishes aren't what's driving the plot, the battles in their small-scale skirmish game really have nothing to do with anything. And that's another place I see a problem-Theseus and Perseus were the heroes of their own stories. Not everyone else had to stop and get pulled in their particular storylines. And also there's the scope-those heroes weren't battling gods directly, they weren't staving off the end of the world, they were furthering their own goals and affecting a relatively small area of their own interest. That seems a lot more similar to the book 1 general storyline than that of books 2/3 where everyone gets caught up in trying to avert some world-ending catastrophe. I found it refreshing that there seemed to be actual restraint shown, instead of instantly going for the old "dark gods bent on destroying the world" trope. I guess that's what my biggest complaints boiled down to-instead of having a bunch of different factions and characters warring and staging power plays it seems everything is instead being mulched into some generic end of the world scenario. And there's really no room in something like that for people to (logically) have side plots or pursue their own interests-things that actually gave them character. Now everything seemingly has to be focused around tyrants, and stopping the tyrants, and finding the tyrants, and worshiping the tyrants, and being vessels for the tyrants, and tyrants tyrants tyrants.

I'm really interested to see where the story heads in the next book. Because to be honest, I haven't really liked the direction things have taken after the first book. I thought the first book did a great job introducing the world, and the masters and their various motivations. It set up a good structure, with lots of plots and schemes and places for conflict. And it also set up a way in which the various skirmishes made sense in the game world. You had major players (masters), some side characters (uniques, etc) and a lot of room for future interaction. But it had one big problem from my standpoint (which I'll get to later). The second book seemed to keep some of this, but it's also where things seemed to diverge, and mostly for the worse. I thought most of the masters got a good introduction that fit well into what was going on. But the thing that I thought was the major problem in the first book seemed to only get worse. I bought the last book this weekend. I was on the fence, but I wanted to read more of the story because I still though that overall it was pretty interesting. However, the thing I found to be a problem in the first two books was all over the third. And that was the overarching tyrant storyline. I've really not liked how it has been handled, and think it also doesn't really fit into making the actual skirmishes/brawls people fight have any part of the story. because having demigods attempting to take over the world has an obviously large disruptive effect on everything else in the storyline. On top of which, having the masters (each who have been decently developed as characters) become nothing but puppets and vessels for these tyrants does the previous characterizations a large disservice, in my opinion. Instead of having lots of ways for the masters (and henchmen) to scheme, interact, and try to increase their power and influence, everything becomes a secondary goal with everyone focused defeating some demigod spirits (or, in the case of those who have been turned into vessels, just being something that enacts their will). Now, this really doesn't impact the actual playing of the game (obviously) but it does give individual games less attachment to the overall plot, I think. What real importance does Ramos fighting Perdita over some bag of soulstones really have? Before you could at least see it as something that helps further his goals to undermine the Guild, or something similar. Now it's just kinda irrelevant in the face of superpowered demigods flooding the city and trying to destroy everything. It just seemed odd to develop this balance of powers and construct motivations for everyone that very well could be supported by small-scale skirmishes and decide to essentially abandon it in favor of grand GW-style mass conflicts and threats.