GG2016 Why do you hate Levi?

[Lizzy Lovecraft]

So, looking over the new Gaining Grounds schemes, and 3 and 9 immediately jump off the page at me as someone just getting into Leveticus.  And I'm sure there's more I haven't realized yet.  I know he's a powerful master, and I know he abused the old schemes, but that IS why I picked him up, after all.  Most of the new stuff seems fair, he can't abuse his rebirth effect to remove scheme conditions anymore, and such, fair, but... 

For example, Mark for Death; so if he buries himself while marked, the opponent gets a point?  This is tolerable because he's hard to mark if he goes early, but.. Neutralize the Leader!; he does it to himself to Channel.  And don't tell me it is balanced by schemes like Setup and Public Demonstration.

I'm sure, if it's as bad as it looks, I'm not the only one ranting about this, so I'll be glad to read all the links you post me.  Maybe they're like Assassinate was, but I doubt it.

Still, these schemes do look like a lot of fun otherwise.  Maybe I am going to learn the Viktorias, instead, after all.

[the proxy union]

remember that both of those are numbered schemes and show up much less frequently than you think. mark for death is fairly easy to play around and neutralize the leader is essentially 3 points for your opponent. neither of which is a death sentence for levi unless taken together. even then he can probably match points on both schemes and possibly come out ahead on mark for death if played right. the strategy is what will make up the deciding factor in games like your thinking. and play skill. always play skill.

 

-Proxy

[Lizzy Lovecraft]

24 minutes ago, the proxy union said:

and play skill. always play skill.

-Proxy

I already had that problem...

[Dogmantra]

Every master has strengths and weaknesses, and the arguable strongest master in the game probably deserves a few weaknesses. Also since you pick your crew after you have seen the schemes, it's always your choice to take Leveticus with the knowledge that you might get counterschemed, which in my eyes is much more preferable to having an opponent lock you out of a scheme because they picked Leveticus (assassinate)

And it's not like his shooting is bad without the s from channelling, you could try to bluff your opponent into taking Neutralise the Leader and then play as a distance support piece, mostly using your great hiring pool and decent shooting to win, tricking your opponent out of 3 points. If you brought along a Librarian, you could probably also get decent mileage from Channel too.

[Lizzy Lovecraft]

9 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Every master has strengths and weaknesses, and the arguable strongest master in the game probably deserves a few weaknesses.

Absolutely, you're right.  It just seems crappy that the scheme pool would cause those weaknesses in such a way.  While, for example, Perdita and kin seem to get a huge leg up from the 25% of the time scheme Hunting Party (while similar to Make Them Suffer, that one at least penalized crews with too few minions as well)

Yeah, I've already told my friends that if I declare Outcasts and a 3 is flipped for schemes, expect to see the Vicks, because she's my only other Outcast master.  I don't trust my Levi skill enough yet to play him support style - yet.  Levi melts faces.

[Bengt]

The way Assassinate worked made it quite hard to get 2 points off Leveticus and nearly impossible to get 3. Neutralize only gives points if Leveticus is played in a certain, admittedly very popular, way. The thing that the more sheltered Leveticus players seems to overlook is that his ranged attack without channelling is already better than many masters' attacks. And his (0) that draws cards is quite strong as far as support actions go.

[katadder]

just used Levi in a tourney this weekend and came 5th, would have been 2nd if I had remembered that I could kill the catch and release hodgepodge for a 0 action to deny a point.

so yes 1 scheme is bad for Levi but just accept he will give away 3pts. I accepted this in a hunting party game too as with summoned aboms I basically gave away 3pts.

[Adran]

There are several threads about it, and the general view is that Wyrd now seems to prefer the scheme to penalise a model, rather than for the model to penalise the scheme.

So before you could pick Levi, and in the scheme pool of Assasinate, Deliver a message, Cursed object, Distract and Line in the sand, your opponent would really struggle because of your choices rather than anything they did. Now you know if Mark for death and Neutralise are possibilities before you build your crew, so whilst you might struggle, you are the player that had the choice before the game.

You can still play Levi as you used too, and just acknowledge that on those occasions, you are just 3 points down. 

[Lizzy Lovecraft]

14 hours ago, Lizzy Lovecraft said:

Yeah, I've already told my friends that if I declare Outcasts and a 3 is flipped for schemes, expect to see the Vicks, because she's my only other Outcast master.

Since all the podcasts seem to be making the lame joke, I gotta throw mine in the ring...

Can't wait 'till Taelor gets the exhausted condition, so she can Shake, shake it off! ;p

[the proxy union]

waiting for an upgrade to give her swift. lol

 

[LunarSol]

18 hours ago, Lizzy Lovecraft said:

I know he's a powerful master, and I know he abused the old schemes, but that IS why I picked him up, after all.

This pretty much self answers the question, doesn't it?

[DXXXVIII]

They balanced some masters out... especially the "i cant die" hamelins/levis but some outcasts got a good buff... Like tara and hannah LOVE mark for death.
Big Outcast-master problem is... that their survival-tool was Survivalist... which doesnt prevent you from taking Damage >.>

[Stadon]

The substantive difference between Assassinate and Marked for Death is that you always had total control over whether you took Assassinate or not against Leveticus.  You always had three other choices, all of which could give you max points.  The Leveticus player has no control over whether you take Marked For Death.  Choosing to deny yourself one point is not the same as someone else choosing to automatically get 2 points if you play the master as designed.  Having one fewer scheme option is not the same as giving your opponent points in a game where denying points is almost as important as scoring them yourself.

[Nexus]

But along those same lines, since you see the strategies and schemes before you pick a master, you always have the option of going with a master other than Levi.  
There are still a lot of setups that he is awesome for, just not this one.   A lot of masters are that way.   I think it's actually a positive thing to see a few strategy/scheme setups where Levi isn't the best choice by default. 

[Clement]

26 minutes ago, Stadon said:

The substantive difference between Assassinate and Marked for Death is that you always had total control over whether you took Assassinate or not against Leveticus.  You always had three other choices, all of which could give you max points.  The Leveticus player has no control over whether you take Marked For Death.  Choosing to deny yourself one point is not the same as someone else choosing to automatically get 2 points if you play the master as designed.  Having one fewer scheme option is not the same as giving your opponent points in a game where denying points is almost as important as scoring them yourself.

If i misread your intention, my apologies.  Text is a funny thing.

Lots of masters are a bad idea to run in various scheme pools.  For example, pulling Lady Justice or Ironsides out when Deliver a Message was in the pool was basically handing your opponent 3 VP assuming they "play the master as designed".

Leveticus' ability to basically remove assassinate from contention was exactly why this happened.  Removing a viable scheme for your opponent is much more strategically powerful than giving up points based on master selection.  Now, running Leveticus into Marked for Death or Neutralize the Leader is essentially the *exact same* bad plan that running a melee master into Deliver a message was.

 

[Stadon]

Again, there is a difference between not being the best choice and giving away 3 points for playing the master exactly how he was designed to be played.  This is not a zombie spam Nico in Reckoning situation where you are making a poor choice to pursue that optional tactic when there are many ways to play Nicodem.  This is actively punishing Leveticus for how he was designed.  Your opponent should not be able to score points for you playing a master exactly how he was designed to play.  How would Perdita and Ophilia players react if the scheme was "You gain one point every time your opponent takes a Sh action"?  Just because it only punishes one or two masters or only punishes them on certain scheme flips does not make the fact that you are being punished for doing exactly what you were intended to do OK. 

As for the Deliver the Message-type arguments, note what scheme is not present in the scheme pool anymore. 

[decker_cky]

A single master should not always be the best choice, but Levi was. It took a bit of a strong armed solution, but Levi now has situations where he is no longer essentially always the best choice. 

[Stadon]

9 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

A single master should not always be the best choice, but Levi was. It took a bit of a strong armed solution, but Levi now has situations where he is no longer essentially always the best choice. 

That is a facile argument.  Saying "Leve was always the best choice" has no factual basis and just feeds off of animosity and groupthink.  Yes, he killed things really hard and was difficult to put down, but there are many masters who fit that bit and are all flexible enough to handle any scheme pool.  Kirai, Ophilia, and Colette all certainly fit that bill.  Picking one scheme where you just give away free points when Leveticus does his thing as recompense for not being able to get full points for assassinate for the longest time doesn't actually solve any problems.  All it does is make him worthless in one scheme and nothing else the rest of the time.  There is no complicated decision making process, no real tactic to avoid the problem created for him by of Marked for Death.  You just can't play Leve when it comes up, otherwise you are basically handing your opponent 3 points.  And no, it is not better than your opponent not being able to easily get full assassinate.  Vastly more effort goes into buying, building, painting, learning, and fielding a master than will ever go into one scheme out of 19.  Crippling a master for a scheme is a much bigger deal than eliminating the ability to easily get the third point on one scheme that isn't even part of the GG rotation anymore.

[Fetid Strumpet]

By your argument then Reckoning, and Hunting party are also unfair, yes? Summoners that play in such scheme pools, if they play as they were designed to play (IE Summoning models) are almost certainly going to give up 3 points if such schemes are in the pool, and Hunting Party, and reckoning are both suited schemes and so they are going to show up much more often than Neutralize the leader and mark for death. You are equally opposed to them, and in fact any scheme which in any way gives any kind easier points to the opponent when using core mechanical rules of said model, yes?

I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, or that your argument holds no weight, in some respects it does, but if that is your argument, I fail to see which schemes treat every master, and every mechanic equally.

I'd recommend you listen to the Cheated Fates Radio Podcast where Justin was a guest and discussed the design discussions behind all the schemes, and why they were made. Agree with them or not, they are the official public reasons for why the changes were made.

[Lizzy Lovecraft]

Well I opened a can of worms, here.

I can't believe I'm on the other side of an argument with Fetid Strumpet, since I've looked up to him since I first opened my Red Chapel box.

I have listened to the Cheated Fates episode now, as well as the Schemes and Stones GG2016 episode, and even Before We Begin's new episode where Ben Crowe makes a Levi crew for the new schemes.  And I've talked over the new schemes with my fellow players 'round here.  And while I am not filled with the contention I'm feeling here, it still doesn't sit right.  A scheme that rewards the opponent for you using Leveticus's core ability is not the same as the opponent having to kill 2 of your minions a turn, even if you are spitting them out through summoning.  And that would just be poor play-style anyway; Nicodem is also built to buff his current allies, not just to summon.  Same with Ramos.  Kirai can rock it herself, Molly should count her summoning as a reward for 1 pt blast damage, etc, etc.  Levi's kinda' a 1 trick pony.  An amazing trick, but 1 trick.  And yes, Hunting Party is advantageous to certain masters.  I personally play against an opponent that lives on Perdita.  I saw Hunting Party and groaned.  Her whole family are enforcers.  At least with make them Suffer in the scheme pool she had to bring some Pistoleros or Death Marshalls.

While all the new schemes do create disadvantages for some masters and advantages for others, the opponent still has to put some effort and thought into it.  It is not an auto 3 points just for taking a certain master.  Certain schemes request thinking outside the box if you want to play a certain master, which is always fun and good for you, but are not an auto 3 points for playing them at all.

And yes, most of us do have some choice in who we hire into are crews, for example, I got Vickie A. if I see Neutralize the Leader come up.  But how do I explain to someone who just has Leveticus that they are handing over points because they bought the wrong crew box?  I, myself, would be in that situation if I hadn't gotten lucky with a Christmas Hired Swords box (randomly picked by my mother).

Luckily my friends aren't ready to use the new schemes yet.

Hell with it!  Molly's been whispering to me from the shelf, "that's 'cause you're a Rezer..."  And I think she's right.  I declare Rezers!

[Khoregard]

There are other ways to play Levi! Focus is a thing and his gun is sh 7, which I would say is a huge component to why he's so effective in the first place. I don't feel like this is an instance of change for the sake of change, but instead an opportunity to explore him further. If you really like him, with practice this new scheme won't even give you a moment's hesitation.

[Sordid Strumpet]

9 hours ago, Stadon said:

That is a facile argument.  Saying "Leve was always the best choice" has no factual basis and just feeds off of animosity and groupthink.  Yes, he killed things really hard and was difficult to put down, but there are many masters who fit that bit and are all flexible enough to handle any scheme pool.  Kirai, Ophilia, and Colette all certainly fit that bill.  Picking one scheme where you just give away free points when Leveticus does his thing as recompense for not being able to get full points for assassinate for the longest time doesn't actually solve any problems.  All it does is make him worthless in one scheme and nothing else the rest of the time.  There is no complicated decision making process, no real tactic to avoid the problem created for him by of Marked for Death.  You just can't play Leve when it comes up, otherwise you are basically handing your opponent 3 points.  And no, it is not better than your opponent not being able to easily get full assassinate.  Vastly more effort goes into buying, building, painting, learning, and fielding a master than will ever go into one scheme out of 19.  Crippling a master for a scheme is a much bigger deal than eliminating the ability to easily get the third point on one scheme that isn't even part of the GG rotation anymore.

In terms of playing the game, preventing your opponent from taking a scheme IS more powerful than not being able to take a master due to a scheme that pops up about 15% of the time. Why? Because the decision to take the master is made before you lose one of your scheme options. What if your opponent decides to run Lady J, thinking they will definitely score assassinate, and then Levi pops up and their crew isn't very good at two of the other schemes. Exactly the same effect, except they had no idea what was coming. You knew full well assassinate was in the pool well before picking Levi.

By your line of reasoning, when playing against outcasts, you must never design a crew with the intention of killing the master. How is that any different?

You are complaining that you can't play the same master 100% of the time, only 85. Very few other masters can even be played 85% of the time. 

Now, add on top of that the fact that Malifaux was never intended to run with a set crew and master (hence the whole picking schemes bfore picking the crew), and you are basically arguing with a core aspect if Malifaux that makes it very attractive to the vast majority of players. 

You might as well complain that your strategy of licking your opponent's models so they don't wamt to touch them any more doesn't work - it just doesn't matter. That is not how the game works as Justin as well as various play testers have repeatedly pointed out.

Your argument holds no water. Why not just learn another master?

[Bengt]

9 hours ago, Stadon said:

 playing the master exactly how he was designed to be played. 

This assertion is at the very least hyperbolic. We are not playing 1.5, the always bury Leveticus thing is only one way to play him. He do have another (0) action, it's not even on an upgrade, it's always there. With A&D or summoned Abominations you can use it with very little cost (with A&D it is even occasionally advantageous to cycle him).

As for channel, if you are conservative and only use it when it matters, always staying at 4 wounds (since it's below half to get points), then heal with a Librarian you wont even give up 1 points unless your opponent puts in some work.

---

The "playing as designed" argument is much more compelling for melee masters and Deliver a Message. 

[mythicFOX]

5 hours ago, Bengt said:

The "playing as designed" argument is much more compelling for melee masters and Deliver a Message. 

This is a good point.

A lot of masters have schemes which are very bad for them.  Ramos has always had Make them Suffer, and playing him as intended (summoning multiple low wound minions to tie up the enemy in melee) with that scheme in pool also gifts your opponent 3VP.  Levi is getting this level of focus now as his is the most obvious example of a scheme being bad for him, but he's far from alone there.

I also think it's the risk you accept when you buy a crew / model considered above the power curve which people are complaining about.  You have to know that a cuddle could very well be coming, and you make your choice.

I'm a Ramos player, Hunting Party just became a suited scheme. I bought a Mech Rider knowing it was significantly above the power curve, and it's been hit three times (errata to itself, errata to metal gamin, and GG2016 schemes).  I'm not complaining about these things, I welcome them, that because I recognize they're good for the game, even if they're not good for me personally.  

I think we need to take a step back with stuff like this and consider the health of the game as a whole and not just our own collections.

All IMHO.

[mythicFOX]

5 hours ago, Bengt said:

The "playing as designed" argument is much more compelling for melee masters and Deliver a Message. 

This is a good point.

A lot of masters have schemes which are very bad for them.  Ramos has always had Make them Suffer, and playing him as intended (summoning multiple low wound minions to tie up the enemy in melee) with that scheme in pool also gifts your opponent 3VP.  Levi is getting this level of focus now as his is the most obvious example of a scheme being bad for him, but he's far from alone there.

I also think it's the risk you accept when you buy a crew / model considered above the power curve which people are complaining about.  You have to know that a cuddle could very well be coming, and you make your choice.

I'm a Ramos player, Hunting Party just became a suited scheme. I bought a Mech Rider knowing it was significantly above the power curve, and it's been hit three times (errata to itself, errata to metal gamin, and GG2016 schemes).  I'm not complaining about these things, I welcome them, that because I recognize they're good for the game, even if they're not good for me personally.  

I think we need to take a step back with stuff like this and consider the health of the game as a whole and not just our own collections.

All IMHO.