Dark Aletheia Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 59 minutes ago, SaintScythus said: However most people think excessive activation control is overall the problem. The solution needs to originate from an overall change or option not just spot treating one at a time. If you take away Hamlin's activation control, he's a bit worthless. Activation control with Hamlin isn't the problem; activation control with the Viks probably is one. So, yeah, I think limiting rats/Obedient Wretch is the way to go. Also, from a design perspective, I'll bet they want to limit rule changes to the minimum possible, making the least possible disturbance. Limiting the hireability of one or two models is a small tweak; overhauling the activation system is basically impossible without a brand new edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Mostly agreed. I agree 100% that they are not going to change the activation system, and honestly, if some of the models were just slightly better thought out it would be less of an issue. Changing minion models can be very tricky depending on how prevelent they are throughout the faction. Not sure Wyrd is gonna go for it. While I *Think* this element of the game has some of the best evidence I've personally seen for a change, let's not forget Levi has had the same firestorm erupt over him, and nothing has happened. So I think we are looking at a year or more before a change of any sort might happen, unless Justin just happens to agree with it after trying it on the table. I'm fairly certain he doesn't want to do an errata as a knee-jerk reaction to whatever the new hotness is. Additionally I think this discussion is useful, but I think Errata are less likely to pop up if there is a current passionate debate about it. I understand that one of the frustrating things about the open playlists that has been mentioned is that it gave many of the players who are frequent posters to these boards a sense of,... I'm really not sure of the proper term, entitlement? Authority? A sense of actually having a direct say on what actually happens rather than an advisory role? I think it far more likely that IF there are plans for an errata, I think it will come out of the blue when this issue isn't so hotly debated to help mitigate, in a minor way, inflamming those passions again. I could be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 While I agree that a "knee jerk errata" isn't a great course of action, Hamelin and his models have a history of causing issues, especially when the errata is drawn out. We saw this last edition and when the errata was finally released it was essentially exactly what was suggested by the community within the first few months. Also Hamelin's models being restricted to just him wouldn't be new, some of his models were last edition. The Obedient Wretch and Rat Catchers could only be hired into a crew that was lead by Hamelin, the Rat Catchers even had a prohibition against being summoned (by swarming Rats) into a crew that was not lead by Hamelin. I would like to see this fixed sooner rather than later. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunarSol Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 21 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said: I'm not certain how that would apply to rats but I do feel there shouldn't be models lower in cost than 3 hirable that can activate in the game. This. The important lesson to learn here is that there's an inherent value in an activation and there needs to be considerations whenever something breaks this base value. One good example is that 2 SS totems are often a good way to break a base value simply because there's (usually) a hard limit of one per crew. I don't think any of the stopgap measures I've seen work for Malifaux. The Marvel game has a pass system, but ultimately that gets weird when most of your activations are being created mid turn. I certainly wouldn't want Ramos starting with the option to pass several times before overrunning the board with spiders, for example. Besides, its been my experience that passing only lessons an issue that really mostly comes down to the old issue of games largely being a collection of different kinds of resources and it being important to remember that while you might have a primary resource (mana) the game can break if any of them fail to be limited properly (card draw). As for fixing issues in Malifaux, I'm kind of curious about taking the Waif's tether concept further. Basically, give them a version of Companion where they can only activate as a Chain Activation after a friendly model activates near them. I'm not sure this could be used to solve the Rat problem though. In many ways, I think the Rat King was the intent to create a "group of cheap models working together" sort of mechanic; unfortunately though, I think there's just a little too much room to control its creation in order to abuse the concept. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 From what I remember of speculation during the Open, the Rat King was supposed to clean up another of Hamelin's *Special Snowflake* rules and theme that was a major problem in 1E and that was the fact that without an inherent way to slow the progression of rats the game just turned into a massive and unfunny morass of: Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates, Rat Activates. Seriously there were complaints of turns that just went on forever because of the shear amount of rats that had to be accurately activated and tracked, which had activated and which hadn't, which were affected by something, and which weren't and so on. To say nothing of the fact that even if the rats were mostly miserable in combat, get enough of them attacking, and I'm sure you can see what the advantage is. The speculations I remember is that Rat kings were a solution that were thematic, and killed that particular issue by forcing the clearing out massive rat build ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fauxreigner Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Do you think a "rat-pack" rule would work as a solution? Once one rat activates, all rats on the table available to activate must do so as chain activations, ignoring the usual restriction of 2. Would this hamstring Hamelin too much? Or is it a viable alternative to the unhirable solution thats been proposed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunarSol Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 51 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said: The speculations I remember is that Rat kings were a solution that were thematic, and killed that particular issue by forcing the clearing out massive rat build ups. Right, that's what I was getting at. I think the idea is sound, but the issue with the implementation is simply that you can control the existence of the 4th rat well enough to get full value in a turn out of the individual rats before forming a King. 12 minutes ago, fauxreigner said: Do you think a "rat-pack" rule would work as a solution? Once one rat activates, all rats on the table available to activate must do so as chain activations, ignoring the usual restriction of 2. Would this hamstring Hamelin too much? Or is it a viable alternative to the unhirable solution thats been proposed? I'd considered the idea myself, but I'd have to try it to know if it has its own problems. That much interrupted AP might be a different sort of problem, even if its low quality AP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solkan Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 51 minutes ago, LunarSol said: Right, that's what I was getting at. I think the idea is sound, but the issue with the implementation is simply that you can control the existence of the 4th rat well enough to get full value in a turn out of the individual rats before forming a King. If the Rat Kings are a step in the right direction, wouldn't it be worth considering taking another step in the same direction? - If you have four or more rats, sacrifice the rats and summon the rat king; and then immediately activate the rat king ignoring the chain activation rules. (This won't lead to an infinite activation chain because the rat was subject to the chain activation limits.) - If you have less than four rats, sacrifice the other rats and gain some bonus such as one additional AP per sacrificed rat and/or a bonus to damage based on the number of rats sacrificed. And possibly gain one wound and then heal two wounds per sacrificed rat. (Effectively creating a "Rat Swarm" without needing to create another rat model....) - If a rat activates with no other friendly vermin within X", sacrifice the rat at the end of its activation. (To make this not so punitive) When the rat is sacrificed, heal one friendly vermin in Y" 1 wound. - Add a (1) tactical action to cause rats to clump together, and call it "Follow the cheese...". The perversity behind this idea is that it allows enemy Obey actions to an option to use the rat mechanic against itself in an AP efficient manner. I just think it would be really impressive if a person could figure out how to make Hamlin + a huge bucket of rats do something cool but limit the ability to just purchase rats to win the activation game for the first two turns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.