tmod

This, so much this!! The faction identity thing is important; if gremlins' thing is cheap models they need to have cheaper models than most other factions. The other factions must then focus on how to play against it instead of wanting the exact same toy. If easy access to zombies is the resser identity, the rest must focus on how to work around it rather than wanting the exact same toy... I think more and more players feel "entitled" to have everything in their faction, or they always did but are more likely to complain it now for some reason (see my thread in Faction Discussion), and I think it's hurting the discourse of the game. To the degree Wyrd is unfluenced by this it hurts the game... I think the entitlement culture us everywhere, but it hurts gremlins more, probably because of the swingy models.

Yeah, that was kinda my point...

To be fair Gremlins won UK Masters this year, which is amongst the tougher competitions there are (Zipp and Som'er unless I'm mistaken). Doesn't address in-faction balance at all of course, but at least there's some evidence gremlins aren't completely hopeless. Don't know if he used any wave 5 stuff, but hard to imagine anything other than maybe Criers... Overall I think gremlins have gotten the worst of the complaining-is-better-than-practicing syndrome that seems to have hit the forum over the last 12-18 months or so. This has led to the cries of OP gremlins being ever as loud, even as more and more of the faction gets nerfed. It also means that some of the most absurd simultaneous topic have concerned gremlins (ie, "Gremlins are auto-win buttons, I rage quit" started the same day as "Gremlins are sucky so I rage-quit"). If only everyone could focus more about how to play their own faction to the top of their ability rather than how unfair it apparently is that bayou gremlins are 3 ss whereas tt Brother and Freikorpsmen are 5 (or whatever)...

Yeah, this is why I'm scheptical about trusting an edition change will solve everything. If they split everything up in waves with open betas like last time it will be years until all M2e models will have M3e profiles. It's going to be much harder to do now because if the higher model pool. I'm highly uncertain if it's at all doable at this from a risk perspective (maybe if TOS gets traction...). The other option for M3e that I can see is to keep the old profiles, and gradually upgrade some with each new book. But this doesn't even adress the balancing issues at all. (On a more optimistic note, maybe Hoffmann can get back his "unexplained connection" in M3e and be able to hire Coppelius again. That was my favourite easter egg in the first edition...) But feedback would still be neccessary/relevant, so another topic really (but a very interesting one!).

It does indeed seem to me that the whining has steadily been increasing over the last few years or so, but I might be mistaken. I read every post (except some rules threads and the community events subforum), but it's easy to misread trends. If you (and others) have the same impression (that it's increasing) we might have an observstion here, and might want to discuss whether we as a conmunity wish to do something about it. I also think it would be useful to "recalibrate" expentations for models. It seems like some people on here expect an extremely tight balance across hundreds of models. Justin Gibbs said several times that it was never a design goal that all x soulstone models should be equally viable. As long as every model was useful sometimes that would be good enough. Also, a model being over/undercosted by a soulstone or two was specifically called out as NOT being reason for errata; models being cheap enough to be auto-includes, or expensive enough to never to be taken, was valid reason for errata. I think these were good benchmarks, but it seems like expectations amongst the player base have moved... Not trying to balance anything with this thread either, except possibly the language and tone of feedback given elsewhere... I completely agree though, listing grievances, especially across factions, is too wide a topic to get us anywhere. Especially under the current discourse where it seems many are out for themselves/their own faction. I don't know about M3e, with some cleanup to the rules for height/vantage points I think the main rules are fine. This would be the socalled M2,5e solution. On the other hand the massive hiring pools in each faction is bound to be problematic at some point, whether we believe we're closing in on that point now or reached it a few waves ago. I'm curious about splitting up factions/increasing hiring restrictions as more factions means more to split the models amongst (in fact I posted a topic suggesting this last week), but worried about the transition process; given the large model pool I think the process will be much rougher, and I don't think it can be done like in M1.5e => M2e. But anyway this is kinda beside the point for this topic though. Whether M2e will be further errataed or M3e is in the works there will need to be a process for giving feedback, and this feedback will need to meet certain standards. This topic is about what we as a conmunity feel these standards should be... Ps. Thanks for the interest! 🙂

I think this is very close to the truth in many instances. I think however that it can be useful to get feedback on what is above the curve. I just wish more would be based on repeated observations and an acceptance that it could possibly NOT be a case of "OMG this is clearly massively OP, anyone disagreeing obviously have no knowledge of the game"... This is very similar to what I've noticed...

I would say on the contrary, and your post happens to Illustrate my point: If there is a "clear indication of power creep" from book to book it should NOT be handled separately. Furthermore, ask gremlin players about wave 5 power creep, see what they say... Besides, this thread is NOT meant to be a discussion of what needs nerfing/buffing. It's addressing how we as a community reacts to powerful combos. Words matter, and if a lot of people complain a lot it makes a difference, whether they are right or not. If the forum degenerates into a shouting match where everyone is trying to make other factions get nerfed, and their own faction buffed, the game will suffer overall (either this noise gets ignored by Wyrd, and real information is lost at the same time, or they listen to too many complaints and wrong models get buffed/nerfed). Finally, and with all due respect, I reserve the right when I post a topic to determine myself what is the "real issue at hand" with regards to my own topic. If you don't find the topic useful, feel free to say that here or elsewhere, or just ignore me. But the real issue at hand here in THIS specific topic is exactly what I introduced in the op; is the whining on the increase? How do we get a meaningful and constructive discussion about preceived balance issues... I'm not going to argue either way in this thread. My whole purpose of this thread was to discuss the process of giving feedback Wyrd, not to list grievances...

Absolutely not my intention, sodium deficiency is (deadly) serious business. Let me know if you can find an alternate source, otherwise I might have to delete this thread... 😉

I've been thinking of starting a thread like this one for a while now, but have held back because, well, this is a great forum, but still an internet forum, so I should probably know better... It seems to me there's been an increasing trend of more and more whining and shouting OP on the forum. Myself, I haven't played the top guns enough to weigh in too strongly on what is/isn't op. But I have a memory strong enough to see some hints indicating that not ALL of these complaints have merit. I do realize that the game has had 5 waves, and increasing complexity due to wider model pool increase the likelihood of OP models/combos, so I'm not saying NONE of these complaints have merit. But I have the impression that an increasing rate of errata the last two years have led to more cries from further erratas. From memory, the last few months have seen the following bold statements (not saying anyone in particular said this exactly, but I feel these are reasonably summaries of statements given in different threads): Sandeep (with mages) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews. Nicodem (with Asura and Kentauroi) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews. Gremlins cannot win against any competitive opponents anymore (despite winning UK Masters). Gremlins (in general) are OP, and should get banned/nerfed out of existence (and they're not a real faction anyway). Somer (with Warpigs) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews. Hamelin is OP, and should be banned. Thunders are useless, Guild is useless, Outcasts are useless, Neverborn are useless (or OP!), Arcanists outside of Sandeep are useless. Probably forgotten several others, but these were the ones at the top of my mind. I'm more than usually certain that all of these cannot be true at the same time! 🙂 From earlier we know that there have been crews that were really game warping and hard to find answers to (several in M1E, Leveticus/Viks with rat engine, etc) that dominated several tournament metas simultaneously. We've also seen crew builds that have dominated some metas, but not managed to reach the same level across metas (the Seamus Belle spam from Chicago comes to mind, who today feel Seamus should get a nerf?, but also Perdita at times, Viks, Sonnia Criid, Lynch, Lilith, Dreamer, Shenlong with Yasunori, Kirai, and several others have at times been complained about). I don't think it's useful for us to spend time and words on trying to figure out how we got here and why (I'll leave that to Wyrd), but I think it is useful for us to discuss how we best can give feedback to Wyrd about the state of the game. So how can we be more constructive in giving feedback? I propose the following goals that we should keep in mind whenever we give feedback/complain: We want a game as balanced as is practical, while we acknowledge that perfect balance will never be achieved. We want as civil a discussion as possible, with as much signal and as little noise as possible so the feedback will be of as high quality as possible. We want the neccessary changes only, change for change's sake is not desireable due to having to get new cards etc. The GG rotation will keep the game fresh without changing the stats for changes sake. Keep game warping models in check. If multiple players across metas rage-quits because they don't feel they have an answer to a crew/master/combo that's a problem. If a model/crew/master/combo is a little stronger than average/slightly undercosted it's not a problem. Anything else I'm missing? Based on the above I'd like to suggest the following recommendations for giving feedback on models' power level: Be clear whether you need help understanding HOW to beat a crew or whether you have seen aggregate experience demonstrating a crew is way too strong. Maybe someone from another meta have faced this particular puzzle earlier, and found a way to beat it! 🙂 Do NOT use hyperbole!! Very little is unbeatable, so don't claim it is. It will just poison the discussion to exaggerate, especially if there is a genuine case for something needing to be pulled in a bit. Never assume your own experience is universal! Sometimes a combo emerges that is universal, and will need to be controlled. But more often it's a combination of a slightly above the curve combo/crew combined with a very skilled player and/or a smaller/less experienced meta. There should be an acid test for when something is OP. My suggestion is that if something dominates smaller tournaments across metas over time (several months) AS WELL AS dominating several of the bigger tournaments across metas (UK Nationals, UK Masters, Adepticon, GenCon, others) it should be considered universally overpowered. If a crew/model/master fails this test, that doesn't mean that it is NOT too much over the curve and should NOT be reined in; it means it's not definitely established that it is OP yet, and we shouldn't act as if it is (see hyperbole above). Be polite! Everyone here are on here because we love the game. No-one wants the game to be unfun, and the forum is generally very helpful, and most players of powerful crews are willing to help others on how to beat them. Famously, when Leveticus/Viks won Adepticon with the rat engine, the winner came on here arguing that it should be banned because he himself couldn't see a way to beat it. It's much more valuable feedback when a big tournament winner argues that his crew is OP than whoever he beat in round 1. Be conservative! Not a general political advice this time, but a good advice when it comes to shouts for errata. It's easy to get carried away after being crushed in a tournament, but hot-headedness makes for a poor quality online discussion. Anything else? Just a note at the end: I'm not having a dig at anyone with this, I hope nobody takes it as such. I post this because I feel the historically very high quality discussion on here have deteriorated a little when it comes to power levels specifically, and I wanted to at least try to make an impact to improve the discourse. We'll see if this succeeds or gets shot down in flames... 😕

I agree with most of what you're stating here, but I'll just add that if the resser player "easily get to 20 activations" then two-three more or less will not make much difference in most cases. If Asura's worst issue had been to help ressers get above 20 activations, up from 17-18, then it wouldn't be much of a problem. It also becomes hard to know who will end up outactivating, because it's hard to see who will kill what, who will get sacrificed, etc. Asura will probably help most ressers out-activate most non-dedicated out-activating, non-summoner crews out there most of the time... I still maintain that others can get even more activations, but I also agree that it doesn't come up very often. I think Asura is above the curve more because she can do what she does just by existing (as you also say), something which is (IMHO) accurate and not hyperbolic, rather than because she guarantees outactivation (which I still think is hyperbolic).

Activation control is normally taken to mean having enough activations to ensure that all your important activations are taken after all your opponent's models have already gone, thus ensuring she doesn't get a chance to respond to your big play at all. This is a potentially game-breaking tactic, as the alternating activations is a core mechanic of the game. Effects that disrupts core mechanics of the game are potentially very strong, just like Necropotence in MTG in the 90s. Unlimited chain activations did the same thing in M 1,5. Examples of this tactic would be rat engine + Killjoy bomb (Hamelin, previously Viks/Leveticus as well), and even the dual Warpig list that was discussed a little while back. I do agree Asura helps a lot in achieving activation control, and makes it much more likely, potentially making her too strong. But most crews seem to run at about 7-9 activations. Getting three extra puts you at 10-13. That's more than most, but a lot less than crewd designed to outactivate; 15+ are not uncommon, and with rat engine/summoning several crews can get significantly more. Saying it's guaranteed ignores all crews designed to take advantage of out-activation. I don't think hyperbole like this serves any useful purpose. If Wyrd is to rebalance they cannot just act on "what is strongest". Balance will never be perfect, so one will always have to be on top. Neither can they react to "OMG, this is way OP, should never have been in the game". If they are to maintain game balance they need to understand exactly WHY a model or game effect is very strong, and exactly HOW strong, how much ahead of the curve it is. Saying Asura is automatic guaranteed activation control is demonstrably false, and does little to shed light on exactly WHY she's too strong and HOW much stronger she is than she should be (granted, a lot of useful points have also been raised in this thread! I'm merely criticising the auto activation control statement...). Hence I think that particular statement contributes more to background noise than to the important signal... Hence my posts.

Hamlin disagrees... I agree two models a turn will contribute a lot, but it's not automatic (easy to kill/probably get used up for summons, so probably won't stack up, etc). Saying something is automatic is not helpful is my point. No, it's not auto outsctivate, Nico is not the auto win button we sometimes get the impression he is, neither is Sandeep, Hamelin, Zipp, etc. Are Kentauroi/Asura probably a little too strong with Nico? Possibly, I personally believe so, but it's so much better to figure out what we can agree on and push for constructive feedback to the errata team than it is to engage in a shouting match about who is most unbeatable. For the record I completely agree it's tough to out-activate a crew with two free activations a turn, though I always had the impression Nicodem was likely to out activate with Mwahahahaha anyway...

Yeah, two zombies a turn is nice, and helps towards activation control. But it's hardly the same as autimatic out activation as was claimed earlier. I feel hyperbole kills a lot of these discussions, and just adds noise instead of being helpful. Seriously, it seems there is a new thread every week about something new that is either auto-win (always the only thing of that power level in the game!), or something that is completely useless. The gremlin being auto-loss thread ironically was just before Gremlins won UK Masters, probably the toughest tournament in the world by an order of magnitude. Again, I'm not disagreeing Nico and Sandeep are strong, and Ophelia is probably weak enough that she could use a buff. But it's not nearly as dramatic as these threads will have you belive...

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Ressers dominates everything except Gremlins, Guild and Arcanists? Sounds like they're middle of the pack, or perfectly average. What is the problem here? Might be me misunderstanding, but Ressers winning all Ressers vs. Ressers games since wave 5 doesn't seem to add much information; I'm prettt sure Ressers have won every Resser vs. Resser game since M1; just like Arcanists have won every single Arcanist vs. Arcanist game, and the same for every other faction in mirror matches...

I don't mind the regular one, but this one, this is something else entirely!

Some will always be stronger, this is just a way to lower effective hiring pool for each master and reducing insane combo potential. My favourite option would be to pause releasing new models, preferably a year or two ago, and instead release alternate upgrades, scenery, etc. Unfortunately Wyrd's business model, along with every other miniatures company I'm aware of, relies on a stream of new model releases every year. More and smaller factions is a way to release more models without making the selection too bloated and unwieldy. Not saying I prefer this, or that it's neccessarily needed, just a thought I had and thought I'd share...

Just got an idea I thought I'd share with y'all... There's been some mentioning of getting a little unwieldy because of the high model count, possibly raising the bar somewhat for new players joining. Some have mentioned the possibility of splitting factions up in the next edition to counteract this (still many models, but fewer in each faction). There's been some chatter about some mercs being problematic as mercs, but not in their own faction. How about reorganizing how mercs and factions are used? First, split up some of the factions to get more, smaller factions (ie Arcanist split into Mages and M&SU). Second, give the Merc traits to ambiguous units that could go either way. Create a system of alliances (Mages allied to M&SU), and allow mercs to be taken only from outcasts or an allied faction. Outcasts have no allies, but can hire mercs from any faction. This should lower the amount of potentially game-breaking combos in the game, but still allow most crews to stay somewhat intact. It would add a sense of distinction to outcast, which I think could be good. (Not saying this is needed or going to happen, just throwing out a possibility. I think this could help reconcile Wyrd's need to constantly release new models with the game eventually suffering from too much bloat.)

If you're refering to my Lady... Wish I could give details, but bought her like this off eBay. Hopefully someone in here will come forward with details and claim their rightful accolades, I think it looks awesome. Normally I don't like to buy painted, but this one was just too cool to pass up...

See if this works: Link to Google drive

Awesome! It even makes the hair kinda make sense... I got one myself that I really like. Not my work, saw it on eBay and just HAD to have it... Will try to get a picture later. Hopefully the converter will be around here to claim credit, because it'd be well deserved! (I have FAR too many justice models; this one two regular plastic (awaiting conversion), at least three metals (regular and alt), the old avatar, etc... Have a plan for all of them, but will probably not get around to them all this decade. Or the next... Oh, and I haven't even gotten around to play Guild yet this edition...) 😕

I've been thinking of posting an ironic thread about nerf-calls myself to be honest, so sad panda for missing out on what you wrote... 😞 Onto the topic this is the internet, so some level og moderation, or censorship if you like, is neccessary. (Btw, the only difference between moderation and censorship is whether you approve or not in each particular instance). I think the Wyrd staff/moderators generally do a good job, but it's a fine balance; you need to allow as much as possible without allowing too much. I think Wyrd have made some mistakes (I thought the off-topic debacle was easily predictable and avoidable for instance), but I think they are remarkably polite and light handed for keeping the forum as constructive, friendly and simply as great as it is. I don't know if it was a mistake to delete your thread (I think it generally better to post a warning and locking a thread than deleting it, as locked threads serves to demonstrate the limits og what is considered ok), but if it was heavy-handed I'm more than willing to accept the over-reach as a neccessary consequence of good quality moderation; sometimes they will miss slightly, and better to stop one flame war too many than allow one too many...

Cool, victorian looking scatter terrain seems to always be in demand... Persobally I'd like ramps (bridges are less interesting as wonky things happen with models on different height levels above one another), victorian ruins, odd stuff for Old Malifaux and 18th-19th century style city blocks that can be placed side to side forming streets and fill a board yet be varied. Oh, and rows of city block facades! Someone did this some time ago and used them make the table represent a city squarr with rows of housr facades forming edges to the table! Should be perfect for 3d printing!

Yes

Not the main point of the discussion but her goes: The four riders alle have names in the formula "x rider", and the Horseman characteristic. They were introduced in the first edition book "Twisting Fates", one for each faction then in the game (except the unsuited Outcast faction) with similar stats and mirroring abilities. They were all big models designed as centrepieces in their factions. In M2e they all cost 12ss, have the same stats, have powers that start out weak and becomes stronger with each turn, a similar defensive pseudo-armour that also gets stronger. In short, weak and pretty much defenceless models early game, powerfull in the last half of the game. Yasunori was compared with the riders even during beta as a big, fast powerfull 12ss model. When released as a big centrepiece model with a rider on its back this impression was strengthened. Now, after a while things have changed a bit, and the similarities are less striking: Yasunori got a 1ss increase im errata due to being perceived too strong. The non-Mechanical riders where given a 2ss decrease due to being perceived as too weak (!). Hence the five "riders" are basically three regular ones at 10ss, Mechanical at 12ss and Yasunori at 13ss. The main difference otherwise is that Yasunori is much stronger early game and can be used for alpha-strikes, whereas the others are stronger late-game. In that sense Yas is more an anti-rider...