Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'competitive play'.
In your experience of M3e thus far, who stands out to you as the most engaging and rewarding master or set of masters? DMH ecluded, (sorry Collodi and Lilith) I'm slowly working my way through my collection (I don't own Marcus, Zoraida or Euripides), so far having tried Titania a few times, and Lucius and Dreamer each in a good number of games. In practice, Lucius is as entertaining as he has always been to me (even before he was any good), and I very much love new Dreamer, and my win ratio with him suggests he might even be stronger. Of the crews I haven't taken to the field yet, Pandora stands out to me as potentially interesting, whereas Nekima seems a bit straight forward for my tastes, although I own all the models so will no doubt try her out. So, based on your own experience which master/masters are your pick? Which combos?
Just to avoid derailing the errata thread further, let's talk a bit of playing Levi competitively. Looks like players have different opinions and some of them looks quite strange since I don't understand the philosophy behind the list. So let's see what you think is a competitive list and why. I'll start to describe what works for me. I'm not a strong scheme player so it means I lose or Draw because I'm ignoring my objectives or picked wrong schemes. But with this list I usually almost table my opponent on the third turn. Then I got more or less 2 turns to try out take as much points I can. Leveticus -untimely demise -aether shackles or desolate soul Rusty Alice -from Aether Ashes and dust Lazarus Abomination Abomination This crew is around 45 ss so it leaves you 5 ss in cache. If you don't pick desolate soul you don't need many of them. The two abominations are your card drawing engine. Basically you hit Lazarus for 1 point of damage due to armor to draw a card. Then you heal him on his activation with self repair. Aboms since are such annoying are also wonderful sucker models. In case you need to go all out, you can kill the abomination for 2 cards or use it to reposition leveticus for a channel shoot focus shoot action. When the abomination dies, it can be resummoned with Alyce, who just need a suitable high card. But since this crew can draw, shouldn't be a big problem. Leveticus with 8 cards in hand can do stuff and if you use the abomination to set a charge, he can hit super hard with a channel-focus-charge activation. Cheat a 11+ on damage and you're looking at putting 8 or more damage in a single activation. Untimely demise can provide a 2 more damage if he's killed and if you were able to pull out a charge by resurrecting on a waif near an enemy, you will be able to use it in the same turn, probably one shooting big pieces and even making other abominations out of them. Unfortunately Alyce doesn't have big reactivate targets, like a desolation engine. But since she can summon and put down decent damage, she is quite functional. No abomination on table meaning no draws and few cards in hand makes Leveticus a sad panda. The crew doesn't fare so well in scheme running, but it's possible to swap Lazarus for some other construct and place the pain of abomination abuse on ashes and dust instead. He usually don't care much about dying and reforming and you can take a 6ss anchor and a scheme runner like a necropunk. Or a 6ss anchor and a hodgepodge effigy.
I recently dipped back into League of Legends for approximately as long as it took me to realize it just made me angry, and it really got me thinking about the purpose of Bans in a game. Just so we are all on the same page, I'm talking about a banning step during the selection process of a game, not blanket bans being put in to try and "fix" balance issues. It's a pretty simple theory; after the scheme pool is revealed, each player gets to ban one master from the opponent's faction, preventing them from hiring that master into their crew. The idea is to create an environment where master selection is more dynamic, as well as rewarding players for identifying the weaknesses of their factions and having skills with models that are not necessarily their first choices. You can use your Ban pick for a lot of different things, such as: -Just plain banning the "strongest" master in the faction. This is the most obvious ban use, of course. If you really feel like you can identify the categorically strongest master in a faction, you can just ban them and the opponent will be playing at a handy cap. Of course, you will be, too, after the opponent bans a master for you. -Banning masters with particular strengths against your faction. A lot of the resilience in an Arcanist crew is tied to Armor, and it'd be really nice to pick from the whole catalog of toys without worrying about Leveticus ruining your day. -Banning masters that have particularly a particularly strong presence in certain strategies. Ramos and Nicodem when Reconnoiter comes up are the answers that immediately come to mind. -Banning masters you just plain don't want to face. Some days, you just don't want to wallow in the Brewmaster's suck bubble. -Banning masters that you have seen the opponent using well in earlier rounds of a tournament. I understand that this might be a bit of a negative play experience for people who really like using certain tools, but the ability to win with a variety of models in different situations is a skill I think that more people who play Malifaux should cultivate, really. I like the idea because it adds another tactical choice to be made before the game even begins. It gives you an incentive to try and cold read your opponent, and it rewards people for critically thinking about the tools that they have access to versus the ones the other player does. It creates more of an interaction between players in the mostly solitary steps before initiative is flipped. Who did they ban? Why do you think they banned them? Can you use this knowledge to your advantage? It also allows the community collectively to self-correct for masters who are doing unusually well, and remove problem matchups that may be preventing a master from operating at their full potential. There are, of course, problems with it. First and foremost, you have the fact that it forces people to bring a wide variety of masters to deal with the fact that any one of them can be banned. People who only own one master will simply be out of luck, and new players will be unfairly punished for their lack of experience if they make bad ban picks. There's also the fact that, for all that Malifaux is a pretty balanced game, not every faction can be equal at every situation. Most factions have "weird" masters that cover their weaknesses; Ironsides is an Arcanist that doesn't rely on Ca actions, Lucius brings ranged attacks to the Neverborn. If you can ban a faction's only access to a certain play style, you can make their crew collection, as a whole, more predictable. Considering that is the opposite of why I want to experiment with banning, I suppose that's a pretty big stumbling block. In a "masters" style tournament, though, I wonder how much of a difference banning would actually make? Anyone else want to muck around with this stuff?
Let's play a hypothetical ban tournament. Steps Generate strategies and schemes. Generate opposing faction. Choose opposing master to ban (bonus points for why) Choose your faction master you THINK will be banned Your choice and why To generate your opposing faction, flip a card: 1-2: Guild 3-4: Arcanists 5-6: Resurrectionists 7-8: Neverborn 9-10: Outcasts 11-12: Gremlins 13-Jo: Ten Thunders/Your Faction (replace their position on the list with 10T) Because this is hypothetical, you have all the tools of your faction at your disposal. You also hypothetically win, if that sweetens the pot.