Rabble Rousing and Whining Thread

[Patzer]

I agree with several things on the list might need a cuddle down the line, simply because doesn't seem to be intended. Colette's Prompt shenanigans, McCabe's super dogs, Collodi's extra AP, Dreamer's Stitched onslaught, Leveticus... something... maybe Merc Tax for hires...etc. At the same time, unless they doesn't streamline the game, in the sense that only a handful of master will ever show up at a tournament, (which in general I don't think they do) then I am fine with the way things are. Sure, I am annoyed with things like all the CA 8s on 4-5 minions, and Resser filth in general, but it isn't game breaking to me.

 

Icemyn said that a number of people played Leve at Adepticon, which is kind of boring since it is more fun to play against a verity of masters. The question is though, why did all those people bring Leveticus? I think it is because: he is a popular master, his crew just came out in plastic, he is a strong master, and he is perceived to be even stronger or even near broken. Nevertheless is it boring that any master is dominant at an event, without taking their power level into account, no matter why people brought the master in the first place. The Devs have said it before, unless Leveticus shows up at the top of most tournaments over a stretch of time; he will not be touched, but they are watching the old git closely. Also, I have a sense is that "master-branded players" might need to mix things up a bit since players will be better at facing the Colettes, Leveticus, etc, of the world. If those masters is still standing after people have grown accustomed to play them, then there might be time for a change.

[Icemyn]

I'm not sure if I made it clear, but I am coming from a strictly competitive standpoint. From that standpoint the format is becoming stale. 

 

For beer and pretzel games I'll throw out the abysmal Yan Lo, or see how high I can get the blighted count with Hamelin, or sometimes see if I can win a game with my swampfiend crew without ever killing a model. That isn't what I'm talking about here. 

 

Which of these statements is true for you when you play in a tournament:

1) My opponent has declared Guild, I expect 2 Austringers and Francisco regardless of master.
2) My opponent has declared Resurrectionists, I expect to see 2-3 belles regardless of master. 

3) My opponent has declared Outcasts, I expect Leveticus to be the master w/ Ashes.

4) My opponent has declared Arcanists, I expect to see the Mechanical Rider. 

5) My opponent has declared Gremlins, wait what? really? cool. 

 

I think Malifaux is an extremely fun game regardless of balance outside of tournaments. Inside of tournaments it's the same thing over and over again, that isn't fun. If a casual player doesn't have the most up to date stat card no worries, that isn't an issue in tournament play. 

 

I only bring this up now so that if any changes are going to be made they have time to make it into the wave 3 arsenal decks. If no changes are made I won't shed a tear, but I would be remiss to not register my complaints. I don't want models cuddled into oblivion, what I want is other models to be a real option. 

 

 

[wizuriel]

As much as I would like see a rebalancing with some models, I remember Malifaux 1E when Sonnia had something like 3 different versions of her card on the market and it was just a huge pain to make sure you were using the right one. 

 

Personally see this as a lose lose situation. Don't do anything and you get balance issues (you could see that in the Wave 3 beta for Gremlins imo where no one was really happy with Sparks because it was too hard to balance her along all the great henchman Gremlins already have). Do try and address it and the game starts to get ridiculously complicated forcing people to make sure they are using the right version of the card. 

 

 

edit: personally instead of cuddling existing models, I would rather see Wyrd follow a similiar trend to Privateer Press and try to change the meta more. Maybe release some models that prevent your own models from being lured, or that make summoning harder. 

[LunarSol]

edit: personally instead of cuddling existing models, I would rather see Wyrd follow a similiar trend to Privateer Press and try to change the meta more. Maybe release some models that prevent your own models from being lured, or that make summoning harder. 

 

There's a bit of this in Wave 3; at least that's what the Sanctioned Spellcaster's main draw seems to be.

 

Wyrd needs to get caught up on their releases before they can get more aggressive with their new releases unfortunately.

[Adran]

I'm not sure if I made it clear, but I am coming from a strictly competitive standpoint. From that standpoint the format is becoming stale. 

 

Which of these statements is true for you when you play in a tournament:

1) My opponent has declared Guild, I expect 2 Austringers and Francisco regardless of master.

2) My opponent has declared Resurrectionists, I expect to see 2-3 belles regardless of master. 

3) My opponent has declared Outcasts, I expect Leveticus to be the master w/ Ashes.

4) My opponent has declared Arcanists, I expect to see the Mechanical Rider. 

5) My opponent has declared Gremlins, wait what? really? cool. 

 

I know UK is different to the USA, but I don't think any of those are true. I'm not saying you'll not face a guild list with 2 Austringers and Francisco, but I bet that guild player doesn't use them in every game. At least not over here

It might be due to the numbers of events we get to, and more attempts to try random things. But you look at the results of the event swe get every week, and you don't find every outcast to be Leveticus. I've only managed 2 events in the past few months, but out of the 7 games 2 met your list. I played arcanist for 4 games, and played the rider once. I don't think it was the right choice for the other 3 games

[SpectreEliteGaming]

As much as I want to say "no way icemyn, you are totally wrong and I disagree with you" I find it difficult to do so as I run all of the models that are considered super strong and almost never dabble with ones that are less than optimal. In other words, pretty much your entire list of models that "need change" are all models I run whenever I can and I'm not going to try to say that it isn't the case. This thread should be renamed "Sh*t that I Run ALL the Time!"

However, just like in Magic (because its the best example) there will always be a few cards (models) that are crazy good and show up all over the place. Have you ever seen a Goblin deck that doesn't run 4x Lackeys/Piledrivers or an Affinity deck without Nexus/Disciples or Ravagers? (Yes, I am THAT jerk who played decks like that allllllll the time). A Levy crew with auto A&D just seems like "yeah, okay - seems right." Maybe I just don't see "auto-includes" as a problem? As I've said before - I am a sucker for "figuring out the perfect lists" for exactly what I am doing and who I am facing on what board and most of my grief comes from things like "Crap! I should have only brought 2 stitched - not 3! (= R5 Adepticon Masters - and he even called me out on it which just made it worse! ).

I am always more upset by a mistake I made in my list building than I am with the game resulting in a loss (brainwashed by Magic, no doubt).

Some models are just better than others and there really isn't a legitimate reason you can give me to not field them in purely competitive settings. Neuter those aces and something else will take its place. The only thing I think all of this unbalanced model stuff will amount to will be a distinction between "tournament worthy" and "non-tournament worthy" models - which is natural and just simply will happen, in any game.

The interesting thing (and I know that it wasn't the intent of this thread, but still...) will be the eventual realization of "tournament worthy masters" and "non-tournament worthy masters" - this will also inevitably happen. Luckily, by the time we really truly figure this game out it will probably be 3rd Edition... so it will be back to the drawing board.

Finally, there's no way you can tell me that the tournament scene is stagnating - if the UK scene says it isn't then I will default and trust them. From their tourney results it certainly seems like there is a good mix in the top tables with the emphasis on top players not top lists... I am more than happy enough with this. I have played in stagnant tournament scenes (Do I need to say Magic again? ) and I don't feel this is even close to that. I played Levy in Adepticon and I played against two players piloting Levy and we all played very differently with very different lists. I, myself, piloted Levy 5 different ways in the 5 different rounds.

It is clear that you (Icemyn) has "figured" this game out more than most people and I don't disagree with anything you said but I also won't say that there isn't anything in this game that I feel I can't deal with. You throw it at me, I'm pretty sure I have an OP answer to your OP problem.

-----

TL;DR

From my experience I have not seen anything that I can't deal with in someway.... and when in doubt just throw shit at the problem and stall it. There are powerful things but I've got powerful things too. Perhaps I have been tainted too long by the "tournament mentality" that invades all games. I wouldn't know how to play in a "functional and balanced" tournament (with "functiona and balanced" models) if there ever was one.

[Ausplosions]

What?! 

 

If you think Yan Lo or Hamelin are for "beer and pretzels" games only, you are very much doing it wrong..  

[papa smurf]

Yan lo is confused at what he wants to do with himself. So I agree he is less than stellar. Hammy though is fine. But fine is overshadowed by levy. Levy can be taken in any strategy and schemes and then has access to crew building that to get it done. Right models right job. Compared to that hammy becomes beer and pretzels. Which ofc a high caliber player like yourself can disagree with and that's fine.

[Adran]

Some models are just better than others and there really isn't a legitimate reason you can give me to not field them in purely competitive settings. Neuter those aces and something else will take its place. The only thing I think all of this unbalanced model stuff will amount to will be a distinction between "tournament worthy" and "non-tournament worthy" models - which is natural and just simply will happen, in any game.

The interesting thing (and I know that it wasn't the intent of this thread, but still...) will be the eventual realization of "tournament worthy masters" and "non-tournament worthy masters" - this will also inevitably happen. Luckily, by the time we really truly figure this game out it will probably be 3rd Edition... so it will be back to the drawing board.

 

Just like in the first edition when it was very quickly realised Marcus and Sommer were rubbish and should never be played competatively (until a few of the good players started to play them and lo and behold, they went and won tournements with them. A lot.).

 

It may be obvious I don't think there is a dominant and overpowered list. A good player can take the same list and play it for all scenarios, but I personally don't think that is the norm (And Icyman you may have done at soemthing last year (Gencon maybe?) but yor repotrt talked about you considering a different list for at leats one of the games.

 

And even if there was a overpowered list that became the norm, its Kryptonite (and I truely belive that each faction has access to the correct tools to beat any list) will just be the commonly played list. If Belle spam is so overpowered that it wins everythign easily, then Counter spell, and models that can't be moved will pop up in every list. Belle spam that can't cast Lure is not a problem.

And so forth.

[MasterDisaster]

 

As much as I agree with many of the points raised here these complaints are pretty much too little, too late. Justin has stated in the past unless various models are regularly becoming an issue or breaking the game they will not get an errata. Ca 8 Lure on Belles for example, it's been raised loads of times in the past. Has it been breaking the game at tournaments regularly? Apparently not as nothing has been done about it and it's been well over a year since they were released. I'm afraid to say even with my own concerns about various models this is a standard case of "Put up or Shut up". I for one just put up with it because at the end of the day this game is a damn site more balanced and fair than Warmahordes or the hundreds of versions of Warhammer. No game is 100% perfect. 

[Dirial]

Will no one talk about the Executioner? That thing is pure poison for anything depending on their defensive triggers, like Dreamer, Kirai or Colette! Built-in Ram, for a stellar weak damage, healing in abundance, and a Scheme marker removal ability as well? Madness! That thing needs the Cuddle Bat right now, if you ask me!

[zFiend]

Will no one talk about the Executioner? That thing is pure poison for anything depending on their defensive triggers, like Dreamer, Kirai or Colette! Built-in Ram, for a stellar weak damage, healing in abundance, and a Scheme marker removal ability as well? Madness! That thing needs the Cuddle Bat right now, if you ask me!

I can't stop laughing. :D

[Patzer]

Will no one talk about the Executioner? That thing is pure poison for anything depending on their defensive triggers, like Dreamer, Kirai or Colette! Built-in Ram, for a stellar weak damage, healing in abundance, and a Scheme marker removal ability as well? Madness! That thing needs the Cuddle Bat right now, if you ask me!

I don't rate it. Really think it should be Walk 7-8 or have Swift.

[Math Mathonwy]

I played arcanist for 4 games, and played the rider once. I don't think it was the right choice for the other 3 games

You, Adran, are probaly be the worst yard stick ever for solving whether cookie cutter lists dominate or not, though. Just noting.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Errata doesn't fix cookie cutter lists though. All errata does is change what the cookie cutter model becomes. So diversifying the meta isn't a strong, or in my opinion, valid reason for errata.

[Math Mathonwy]

Errata doesn't fix cookie cutter lists though. All errata does is change what the cookie cutter model becomes. So diversifying the meta isn't a strong, or in my opinion, valid reason for errata.

Levi is now seen by some as being so strong that he is the optimal choice for all Strategy and Scheme combinations for Outcasts. Do you really think that if Levi was brought down a notch, some other Master would inevitably rise to the spot where they is the optimal choice for all Strategy and Scheme combinations?

Because I very much disagree with that premise.

[zFiend]

Levi is now seen by some as being so strong that he is the optimal choice for all Strategy and Scheme combinations for Outcasts. Do you really think that if Levi was brought down a notch, some other Master would inevitably rise to the spot where they is the optimal choice for all Strategy and Scheme combinations?

Because I very much disagree with that premise.

 

Colette. But she exists already.  

[LunarSol]

Errata doesn't fix cookie cutter lists though. All errata does is change what the cookie cutter model becomes. So diversifying the meta isn't a strong, or in my opinion, valid reason for errata.

 

It depends on what level of diversity you're looking for.  Personally, I'm of the belief that as long as Faction diversity relatively balanced, the game is in a pretty healthy state.  If a faction falls out of competitive viability, the game is in a critical state.  Ideally, the game can go a layer deeper and reach Master diversity where every master is competitively viable, but as long as every faction has 3-4 good options I think this one can get by on partial credit, particularly if the bad half is made up of unique and fun playstyles that keep them entertaining, if not optimal.

 

The rest... I can take or leave.  We all have personal favorites when it comes to models, but there are redundancy points that are always going to result in, at best, a perception of superiority.  There are points that by definition have to be left in the bag each game after all.  I actually find that as players whittle down their faction to a core group of the best models, they actually are able to better leverage models outside that core over time.  If I've got a core Guild list built around Austringers, Francisco, and Hounds, it becomes easier for me to find situations where I'm better served removing a component and swapping in a "lesser" model.

[Fetid Strumpet]

The argument that Levi is the optimal choice for all schemes and strats and so therefore should be changed so that other masters will be played is a very weak argument for errating him. So no I don't agree with that reason.

If Levi is in fact the optimal master for all schemes and strats, a fact I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with, then it behooves us to look at his power level versus other masters, and his repeated performance at high level competitive events. If the case is he is more powerful then all the other masters, not just a better choice, in that case then he should be adjusted, because that would be a demonstration of being bad for game as a whole. But arguing that other masters won't get played because he is in the game, isn't a good argument for changing him, unless you say that its because he is OP and breaking the game.

He's also a master which is a different thing from other models. Saying "I always see the Mechanical Rider in competitive Arcanist Lists, and I want t cuddled so that Ill see other models get used instead." Is an exceptionally weak argument to advocate for a change. As all that would happen is that some other model would become the most common model used.

Remember the play tests are done and completed, so that means errata is going to be rare, but done if required. But that also means the burden of proof for advocating a change is also that much higher. Philosophical statements and rules analysis like "no minion should have a stat of 8 on any of their attack actions" or "the mechanical rider breaks the summoning conventions of requiring suits and material to summon" are not valid arguments because they are personal opinions, not actual data demonstrating in what way they are breaking the game.

Now I personally think Levi is getting close to having enough data to justify an errata, but I think he is the only one close really, and in not certain he's crossed the line yet. Additionally who knows where Wyrd's line for justification or need lies, but let's even take a wild moment to suppose that's where he is, it's also a long way from saying he needs a change to actually knowing why that change should be.

I'm sure any of us that were and are mildly active on the boards from that time remember why a nightmare working on Levi was the first time around. And with things like Levi, just changing his rules arbitrarily I don't think would work either. You'd be looking at a whole new mini play test, not necessarily as large as the open, but involving more players then just the in house development team to adjust the correct amount, as I doubt there is even a consensus to even a small degree about what and how to change, even if we accepted he needed one.

[Math Mathonwy]

The argument that Levi is the optimal choice for all schemes and strats and so therefore should be changed so that other masters will be played is a very weak argument for errating him. So no I don't agree with that reason.

That's an utterly bizarre stance and a massively weird definition of what makes for "a very weak argument". I'm utterly flabbergasted.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be utterly ignoring the errata that has been issued so far (and I'm not talking about stuff like adding the discard to My Threatening Gun like all the other guns). Lynch errata especially seems to fly against basically all of your points.

[Icemyn]

He's also a master which is a different thing from other models. Saying "I always see the Mechanical Rider in competitive Arcanist Lists, and I want t cuddled so that Ill see other models get used instead." Is an exceptionally weak argument to advocate for a change. As all that would happen is that some other model would become the most common model used.

This statement is completely meaningless.

 

Lets say that I see belles in 90% of resur lists.(which is probably a low ball) Belles get cuddled and the new best model, which may even be belles, shows up in 60% of the lists as a result. You are technically right that a model is now the most played, but not at the same degree. 

[Victoria]

I suppose I don't have an opinion on most of that which has been discussed here as it is all stuff that is able to be dealt with with proper forethought, though I do feel that Leveticus with ashes and dust needs to be looked at a bit.

 

I do admit that I quit a game once that had nothing but Belle's on the table because it was too annoying.

[moxypoo]

But that also means the burden of proof for advocating a change is also that much higher. Philosophical statements and rules analysis like "no minion should have a stat of 8 on any of their attack actions" or "the mechanical rider breaks the summoning conventions of requiring suits and material to summon" are not valid arguments because they are personal opinions, not actual data demonstrating in what way they are breaking the game.

 

This is an important point I think.  Philosophical arguments relating to a game aren't useful unless they're based on empirical data, which is why Justin always said that battle reports carried much more weight than theory during the beta tests. Also, everyone has differing opinions of what's overpowered, and different metas will have various "OP" units.  To illustrate this, I'll piggyback on one of Fetid's posts from earlier in the thread when he discussed how he thinks Rotten Belles ARE NOT too powerful, while also mentioning that he thinks Jacob Lynch IS too powerful.  My opinion on these models is exactly the opposite - I've never had a problem with Lynch but I think 6SS (or adding a Rare 3?) would be a more appropriate cost for Rotten Belles.  Neither of us is more correct than the other, but it's important to note the underlying premise that errata in the absence of overwhelming data is BAD.

 

Extensive errata is always going to lead to unforeseen ripple effects, which is most likely why Wyrd decided to test as many models as possible during the playtest rather than focusing on a small subset.  Warhammer 40k releases each faction independently of each other, and it's known as having atrocious balance.  Going back and slapping errata on a small subset of models will obviously alter many of their interactions, and the consequences will not be readily apparent without more extensive playtesting.  My stance is that overwhelming evidence must be in hand before cuddling models. 

 

One also can't equate "ubiquitous" with "overpowered."  I believe Icemyn mentioned that Levy was used by 20% of the Outcast players at Adepticon earlier in the thread.  But that number by itself means nothing.  There are lots of other factors involved, such as the fact that his crew was recently released (and it's awesome!) and that he's widely considered to be top tier/OP.  How many of those players who took Levy thought, "I want to win, and Levy is considered to be one of the best masters, so I'll take him!" This leads to the fact that there's always netlisting/netdecking occurring in games, which will account for some non-trivial number of people playing the master/deck perceived to be the best.  In my experience, great players almost always beat poor players with great lists, so I would be interested to see the records of all those Levy players at Adepticon.  If Levy is indeed OP, then the top spots should be filled with Levy players (I don't know if they are or not since I haven't seen the Adepticon results). The UK tournament results I've seen seem to support that the better players will win almost regardless of master.

 

Now, I'm probably known as an Outcast/Levy player on these boards, so please don't think I'm saying, "Don't cuddle my favorite master!"  If enough data supports Levy being OP, then I'll fully support a cuddle.  My main point is that Wyrd should be stingy with the cuddle bat, because frequent and/or extensive errata can do serious damage to a game.

[Icemyn]

One also can't equate "ubiquitous" with "overpowered."  I believe Icemyn mentioned that Levy was used by 20% of the Outcast players at Adepticon earlier in the thread.  But that number by itself means nothing.  

To clarify I said 20% of the field was Outcasts all running Levi. 20% of the the outcasts running Levi would be balance imo. 

 

Edit: on the netlisting Levi point, I didn't see a single Levi player playing a similar list. Honestly, they couldn't have been more different. 

[moxypoo]

To clarify I said 20% of the field was Outcasts all running Levi. 20% of the the outcasts running Levi would be balance imo. 

Thanks for the clarification!

 

Are the records of all those players listed anywhere?  I'd be interested to see them if they're available.