Theorycrafting changes in current models

[Vorschlag]

Quote

Sure, but if you up a model`s cost and its not losing your viablity then something is off. Same if you drop the model by X points and they are still bad there also might be a design flaw.

Agreed, some models could be "fixed" just by increasing their soul stone cost by 1 so they have more competition and to possibly threaten their "auto-include" status.

[Omenbringer]

"Auto-include" isn't neccesarily a bad thing if it is heavily tied to either a specific crew or faction. An example of the former would be the non-master Viktoria with the Master Viktoria. The latter would probably best be represented by the Slop Hauler in the Gremlin faction (without his mass healing the faction as a whole takes a huge step back in and many models would need to be re-costed and/or rewritten to compensate for the loss).

[Vorschlag]

Quote

"Auto-include" isn't neccesarily a bad thing if it is heavily tied to either a specific crew or faction. An example of the former would be the non-master Viktoria with the Master Viktoria. The latter would probably best be represented by the Slop Hauler in the Gremlin faction (without his mass healing the faction as a whole takes a huge step back in and many models would need to be re-costed and/or rewritten to compensate for the loss).

Agreed, case by case basis, I don't consider a 1 stone increase the loss of a model however.
I don't know if I'm inclined to see Slop Haulers as needing that increase or at least i would not put them on the worst offenders list but I generally only find use for them with Somer and Ulix (yet to use Wong and don't play Mah). 

[Fetid Strumpet]

I wrote a big long post, again (shocking I know) dissenting with that opinion, but I really didn't feel like going over ground we have gone over 100 times or more. Succinctly, really I think it boils down to how the game is doing on a macro level. Every single faction has OP models and options available to them. Overall with very minor exceptions, which can be argued about, those OP models are not translating into one faction or another dominating competitive events. We have a larger amount of factions and masters being used to win those tournaments than was ever the case in 1.0. Since the game is functioning well there are very few models that are actually OP that need changing. The more commonly discussed culprits, Belles, Francisco, Austringers, the Mechanical Rider and so on don't need changing because they seem to come out balanced on the macro level.

[Surrealistik]

I think both the macro (inter-faction balance) and micro balance are important. I hate centralizing auto-include/no-brainer models that kill list diversity, and feel they should be rewritten. Some people may feel that it ain't broke and as such it doesn't need fixing but I disagree completely if you end up with a large degree of homogeneity in the game as is often the case given the relative ubiquity of Austringers, Belles, etc...

Further even if you can somehow win without using them, even in a competitive environment (as occasionally happens), that doesn't mean they're balanced or not problematic, or that they're not bad for the game. Yes, re-balancing such models might be messy and require extensive playtesting, but it should be done for the game's long term health.

[Vorschlag]

 

8 minutes ago, Surrealistik said:

re-balancing such models might be messy and require extensive playtesting, but it should be done for the game's long term health.

 

Well the next release is book four for 2.0.

 

Book four for 1.5 was storm of shadows.

 

What happened after storm of shadows again?

[Fetid Strumpet]

I doubt very much that the company is going to bring out M3E next year. 1E was way more rife with imbalances than m2E is. Will there be a 3rd edition, almost certainly if the game remains profitable enough for the company, and remains popular enough with its fans. Is it coming anytime soon, that I highly doubt.

And we did rebalance them, it was called the really long play testing period into m2e. Belles in 1e were 4 stones, had unimpeded, the same lure, without a trigger, the same undress, 6 ml and a trigger to get a positive dmg flip. 

As for the micro/macro balance issue, what you are striving for is an impossibility. No matter how much you rebalance and rebalance and rebalance, every time you do so you are just going to change what the most powerful models are. List diversity, in a competitive environment, are always going to be, to some extent, focused on the absolute most efficient and best models for their cost, which there will always be. Rebalance every model in the game right now, and as soon as the dust clears all you are going to see is the same level of list diversity as you see now, because there will always be some models that are better than the cut at their level, and those models will be the ones you see over and over again. In the particular example we have been discussing, it isn't as if Belles are pushing out other options at their level. Nurses and Necropunks are common inclusions at their cost level currently. Onryo just aren't good enough hires at 5ss to warrant bringing along, great as summons though, and wouldn't see more play regardless, and opinion is mixed on Crooked men with some loving and some disliking. Again you wouldn't see them more if you changed belles.

And there are a lot of models that show up in every list. Change them and you aren't going to get list diversity. All you are going to do is change the models that shows up in every list. And then when you change them, the next set will show up in every list. Wyrd is doing a better thing in constantly updating the Strats and Schemes than trying to consistently rebalance models. Overtime they do they shake up the meta and overall cause the value of the models in the game to fluctuate a bit. Hunting Party and Show of Force being big ones that have, at least in my experience, caused more list diversity than any amount of 'rebalancing' has. The game aside from one or two things, of which belles are not one, is fine and healthy. You are certainly welcome to disagree, but I doubt very highly that almost any models are changing anytime soon.

[Vorschlag]

23 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

I doubt very much that the company is going to bring out M3E next year. 1E was way more rife with imbalances than m2E is. Will there be a 3rd edition, almost certainly if the game remains profitable enough for the company, and remains popular enough with its fans. Is it coming anytime soon, that I highly doubt.

Agreed, my sense of humour does not translate online and I don't use smilies. 

[Surrealistik]

@ Strumpet:

You're basically assuming that the new imbal will be the same as the old imbal; that the extent to which the new 'best' models are better would be comparable to the extent the best models are now, which is not necessarily going to be true. Striving for better micro/faction internal-balance than what exists now is not an impossible fool's errand.

[trikk]

2 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

I doubt very much that the company is going to bring out M3E next year. 1E was way more rife with imbalances than m2E is. Will there be a 3rd edition, almost certainly if the game remains profitable enough for the company, and remains popular enough with its fans. Is it coming anytime soon, that I highly doubt.

And we did rebalance them, it was called the really long play testing period into m2e. Belles in 1e were 4 stones, had unimpeded, the same lure, without a trigger, the same undress, 6 ml and a trigger to get a positive dmg flip. 

As for the micro/macro balance issue, what you are striving for is an impossibility. No matter how much you rebalance and rebalance and rebalance, every time you do so you are just going to change what the most powerful models are. List diversity, in a competitive environment, are always going to be, to some extent, focused on the absolute most efficient and best models for their cost, which there will always be. Rebalance every model in the game right now, and as soon as the dust clears all you are going to see is the same level of list diversity as you see now, because there will always be some models that are better than the cut at their level, and those models will be the ones you see over and over again. In the particular example we have been discussing, it isn't as if Belles are pushing out other options at their level. Nurses and Necropunks are common inclusions at their cost level currently. Onryo just aren't good enough hires at 5ss to warrant bringing along, great as summons though, and wouldn't see more play regardless, and opinion is mixed on Crooked men with some loving and some disliking. Again you wouldn't see them more if you changed belles.

And there are a lot of models that show up in every list. Change them and you aren't going to get list diversity. All you are going to do is change the models that shows up in every list. And then when you change them, the next set will show up in every list. Wyrd is doing a better thing in constantly updating the Strats and Schemes than trying to consistently rebalance models. Overtime they do they shake up the meta and overall cause the value of the models in the game to fluctuate a bit. Hunting Party and Show of Force being big ones that have, at least in my experience, caused more list diversity than any amount of 'rebalancing' has. The game aside from one or two things, of which belles are not one, is fine and healthy. You are certainly welcome to disagree, but I doubt very highly that almost any models are changing anytime soon.

I believe while perfect balance is unachievable, thats not my goal.

My goal is to have at least a glimpse of being able to counter some lists etc. and limit NPE

 

Lets compare 2 things. 2 Belle companioning and Rat factory.

With Belles: 

you can be out of range

you can be out of LoS

your enemy can BJ the flip or flip low and not have the cards to get all 4 lures off

your enemy might not be able to see you after second lure with second belle

you can have Laugh Off/Counterspell/Spellcaster aura etc.

 

Rat factory:

8SS, 8 activation, no SS required, no cards required, basically automatically goes off unless you alpha strike the obedient wretch

 

While I find Belles strong there`s a reasonable counter list that I can at least try to utilize to minimize the gain my opponent makes.

With Rat factory the only thing I can do is try to snipe the rat/wretch with a sniper which is kind of hard if you lose deployment.

 

So while for me Belles can stay as is, the rat factory offers a lot of NPE and probably should be dealt with (in some way)

[lusciousmccabe]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

Rat factory:

8SS, 8 activation, no SS required, no cards required, basically automatically goes off unless you alpha strike the obedient wretch

What factory is this? Because as far as I'm aware the Obedient Wretch needs a suited Trigger in order to be able to summon anything. So that's two cards to assuming you have a pair of crows you're willing to use on it and don't just luck out on the flips, which also means it's not really automatic. It is more doable if you're playing Hamelin because of The Stolen, but easily outactivating everyone is one of Hamelin's only decent tricks. 

[trikk]

If you don`t have the 2 low crows you can:
"(2) Inevitable Fate: Summon two Malifaux Rats into base contact with this
model, then sacrifice this model." if you want an alpha strike

 

I don`t really see the issue with Hamelin, but from Adepticon, the issues we`re Levi and Viktorias having extra 6 activations turn one.

[daniello_s]

36 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

What factory is this? Because as far as I'm aware the Obedient Wretch needs a suited Trigger in order to be able to summon anything. So that's two cards to assuming you have a pair of crows you're willing to use on it and don't just luck out on the flips, which also means it's not really automatic. It is more doable if you're playing Hamelin because of The Stolen, but easily outactivating everyone is one of Hamelin's only decent tricks. 

trikk has an obsession about Rats apparently  

[trikk]

You know nothing Daniello_s!

I have an obsession with Outcasts

[daniello_s]

If I know nothing then call me Jon Snow!

 

[Adran]

57 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

What factory is this? Because as far as I'm aware the Obedient Wretch needs a suited Trigger in order to be able to summon anything. So that's two cards to assuming you have a pair of crows you're willing to use on it and don't just luck out on the flips, which also means it's not really automatic. It is more doable if you're playing Hamelin because of The Stolen, but easily outactivating everyone is one of Hamelin's only decent tricks. 

well you could hire 4 rats, that gives you 8 activations on the first turn, as long as you can cast the reactivate from the rat catcher on a rat. its 7activations if you fail that. (just remember to deploy one of the rats away from the otehr 3 to get the full 4 activattions from them before they combine)

[zeeblee]

I agree that it's good to balance for both competitive and casual play, but then it also pretty much turns into two different balance tiers rather than one cohesive balance structure.  Now, I admittedly have been out of the loop on League of Legends balance for a couple of years now, but their official doctrine "back in the day" was to balance top tier play first in order to prevent tournament stagnation.  The next balance level was "pub-stompers."  Characters that were pretty much crap in competitive play, but still caused a toxic environment in low-level play because new players didn't have the knowledge/skill to deal with them properly.  Pubstompers would get n-erfed to nigh-unplayability in order to protect new players and had the known caveat "this will never see competitive play."

The discussions around Belles often sounds like how people would discuss pubstompers in LoL.  They're a pain in the ass to deal with, but once you know what you're doing, they're just another factor in the game.

The discussions around Ratjoy (or ratctivation for killey Outcast masters) sounds more like the global-range ultimate problem LoL had a long time ago.  It's a problem that competitive play often capitalized on, and made it so champions with global-range would frequently get banned or picked first in drafts.  Now, they didn't win every game, but they had absurdly high influence in dictating the game's pacing.

[Surrealistik]

59 minutes ago, zeeblee said:

I agree that it's good to balance for both competitive and casual play, but then it also pretty much turns into two different balance tiers rather than one cohesive balance structure.  Now, I admittedly have been out of the loop on League of Legends balance for a couple of years now, but their official doctrine "back in the day" was to balance top tier play first in order to prevent tournament stagnation.  The next balance level was "pub-stompers."  Characters that were pretty much crap in competitive play, but still caused a toxic environment in low-level play because new players didn't have the knowledge/skill to deal with them properly.  Pubstompers would get n-erfed to nigh-unplayability in order to protect new players and had the known caveat "this will never see competitive play."

The discussions around Belles often sounds like how people would discuss pubstompers in LoL.  They're a pain in the ass to deal with, but once you know what you're doing, they're just another factor in the game.

The discussions around Ratjoy (or ratctivation for killey Outcast masters) sounds more like the global-range ultimate problem LoL had a long time ago.  It's a problem that competitive play often capitalized on, and made it so champions with global-range would frequently get banned or picked first in drafts.  Now, they didn't win every game, but they had absurdly high influence in dictating the game's pacing.

This would be accurate if Belles didn't see or were crap in competitive play; they weren't and do.

Also Rat Factory/spam being worse than Belles != Belles being okay.

If it kills list diversity (and Belles do about as much as Austringers), it should probably be revised.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Again just to clarify, this isn't an attack on you Surrealistik. I very much respect your opinion even if I vociferously disagree with it, and hope you'll continue the discussion.

That said, You aren't going to get increased list diversity by changing them, all you will do is change the models you see all the time. Because a competitive player is only ever going to be interested in the best and most efficient options for their lists, and there will ALWAYS be those options no matter how hard you try. In a non-symetrical game it is not possible to create a perfectly balanced game where every option is perfectly balanced for their points cost, and that those point costs create a perfectly balanced game at the macro level. No one has ever succeeded at such, even games like Magic have never managed it. Partly it's because points costs are relative. And fluctuate based on what else is available to combo with it

For example how many SS is armor +1 worth? Is it worth the same if I give it to a model with 2 wounds vs 10 wounds? What about if we give it to a model that has def 4 vs df 7. What is it worth if the model in question can use SS vs not use SS? What is it worth if it's on a model that has more than 2 ap vs one that has 3 or more? Is it worth the same on a model that only has armor +1, or is it worth more if the model also has incorporeal, or H2W and H2K? Is it worth the same on an Insignificant Peon vs a Master? 

How about Reactivate, it's a very powerful condition which we can all agree on, but how many SS is it worth to have it? Is it worth 1SS a use? If so is it worth the same if I give can only give it to minion like a Steam Arachnid, or is it more valuable if I can give it to Models like Howard? If it can only be used on minions, how much is it worth now if a faction doesn't have access to a minion level of Howard vs how much is it worth if in a later released book that faction then gets a howard equivalent? What is it worth if it takes an entire model's activation to give it? In such a case what would the balancing factors be if that minion cost 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10SS? 

How many SS is being able to cheat for Initiative worth? Is it worth more or less if a faction has access to a model like Nekima, which allows her to be utilized late in a turn and then almost guarantee they will go first next turn? Is it worth more if the models also have access to the rat engine? How many SS is it worth if Outcasts could access the Doppleganger and Nekima in the same crew as a rat engine? Try this, where in the game would you rate Rasputina and Seamus in the tiers of masters at present? Most of the common ratings current subjective listings people have posted have them in the middle of the pack, possibly in the upper middle, but very few lists have them as top tier. During wave 1 those were the two masters that many people commonly said were two most OP models in the game and it wasn't fair to compare anything they could do to any other model because they were obviously OP. Doesn't seem to be the case any longer, and neither significantly changed. 

The point I'm making with all these differing examples is that there is absolutely no absolute way to assign a points cost to these examples. They are all dependent on how they are combined with other rules, and what other options are available. Your argument seems to be that there IS an objective way to determine balance for each and every model at every SS level. If your argument is correct then there should be a way to fairly cost it so that every single master can hire any particular model from any faction in any particular game, and the game would be balanced. If your argument is correct it should be possible to cost balance it so that a game could have Leveiticus as the master, with Nekima in his crew, a doppleganger, some rotten Belles, a Brutal Effigy, and Austringers. Which just isn't the case. The relative value of every piece in the game is dependent on how they can be combined with other models. Rotten Belles are good with every Resser master, but they are still better for Seamus than anyone else because he gets the additional benefit of being able to use them to heal. According to your argument you should be able to provide a point cost that would make them equivalent no matter who you bring them with. According to your argument, if a model is balanced, it will be worth the same cost no matter what, so logically that means that models with the mercenary trait shouldn't work at all, ever. Because if they are costed properly then they are absolutely 100% of the time going to be overcosted if anyone outside their faction takes them because they are overpaying for the abilities they bring, or they are overpowered for the faction that contains them, because if another faction is willing to pay 7ss to get access to them than a faction that can hire them for 6 must be underpaying. Let's take another debated model, The Widow Weaver. For the sake of argument let's assume that she is a perfectly priced model, and that she is the standard under which all 8SS models are to be held. Let's say Wyrd comes out with a statement to that effect. Does that mean she is still perfectly balanced and priced if tomorrow we decide to make her a dual faction NB/Resser? How much better does she become if I can combine her web markers and her wp attack with Sinister Reputation Seamus and the Hanged? If balance is objective and able to be achieved at the micro level then this should present no problems right? We both get our masters for free, I spent 8SS on a model that for the purposes of this argument is the standard under which all 8SS models should be judged, therefore there should be absolutely no chance of it breaking or becoming worth more than that 8ss no matter who I combine it with, according to your argument that the micro level of balance will in essence fix the macro level of balance.

Another aspect of your argument is that by constant rebalancing you will achieve list diversity as a primary goal. So along the same lines if we get the micro balance correct you should be as likely to see a Guardian in a Perdita crew as you do in a Hoffman crew, correct? Even though Hoffman has rules that make the Guardian better for him than for others. In the real world it is an impossibility, and the toxic environment you claim is being created by some models being better for their cost now would come to pass if all models were constantly being changed based on the current favorite bogey man of the hour.

Lets assume your stated preference of affairs took place. Let's say they regularly, say, once a week updated all models in the game to take into account whatever the latest outrage was. They'd soon have no players, because no one could have any reliable idea what any model in the game did. As you adjusted the balance of one model another model would seem to be above the line, and after fixing that another would, and then after fixing that the original model might now be too good once again. Or they could cuddle one thing, and then the model would never be taken again. No one would have any idea what was worth anything in the game, ever since what is worth something this week might be worthless the next. And even if you could somehow magically achieve perfect balance every update, which you can't, how would you attend to the real world logistics of implementing such a change? The models are sold with Physical cards, and their stats are printed in books. How are you going to prevent the situation where multiple versions of the same model are being utilized by different groups at the same time? When those players show up at an organized event and try to use their cards in a game where someone knows they have the wrong card, after they've just gotten through a round or two against players that didn't know any better, how is that going to work? If you go completely digital, what are you going to do about the physical copies of the books, and are you then going to only appeal to players that can afford to have this digital devices at the table? Let's not forget all the confusion of cards that occurred at the end of 1.0 which actually lead partly to the creation of m2e. So you additionally have to take into account all the real world logistical elements that go along with issuing errata in a system where there isn't rules rotation, like there is and is almost required to be in card game formats. If you are going to make a change you need to make certain that that change is absolutely necessary for the longterm health of the game, by someone who currently owes their living to the decisions they make. It's very easy for any of us to state "I think it is clearly evident that this model is OP and they must cuddle it", trust me, I've done it myself. It's another thing when your dinner and the dinner of your family rests on your decisions, and it's why companies tend often be conservative with their decisions.

And all those elements don't even take into account another element to miniature games that you can't ignore, and it's an argument that Justin made, and has adhered to as far as I know since before he was even hired at Wyrd, and that is that there is a personal element present in hobby miniature games that just isn't the case in more abstract game piece systems like cards. People put hundreds of hours and dollars into buying, collecting, painting, displaying, and playing with their models. There is far more personal attachment and vicersal connection to a miniature and its rules than there is to a gaming element as impersonal as a piece of cardboard. There were massive arguments and people swearing never to play the game again during the changeover simply because of how some of the models changed. One person was absolutely Livid and passionate about the fact that they had bought models to use with a Jakob Crew in 1.0 and that now not every single one of them could be utilized with him in every configuration, and that was a minor change during a period were EVERY model was being redone. Consistently changing the models after the testing period is done would be worse.

Now, though I feel I've presented a pretty strong case that you need to be very careful about cuddling models once they are officially released. However I'm not as far from your position as you might think. I'm a remnant of the old guard who started early in 1.0 and was with the game through all the imbalance issues of 1.0, 1.5, and through all the open testing in the transition. I'm 100% firmly in the category that errata and rebalancing are options that must ALWAYS remain on the table, and should be utilized when warranted. I think where you and I differ is where the line for warranting it is. You've stated, as if it was an absolute, unassailable fact that Rotten Belles are broken and need to be changed. However you haven't provided anything like hard evidence to back up your claims. Your assertion that Ressers were "cleaning up" in the UK scene as one potential datapoint was easily shown to be incorrect hearsay (and to clarify I'm not ascribing malicious intent to you, as I had also heard things, so I went to check) because Ressers aren't even in the top three of the factions regularly winning there. We can certainly argue about why that is the case, but even if we assume at the moment, for the sake of argument, that rotten belles are incontrovertibly OP for their point cost, that doesn't seem to be translating into an unfair number of wins at the competitive level. Of the yearly major tournaments where the best players from diverse metas come out to play that have occurred since M2E came out (Gen Con, Adepticon, the UK GT, and now I suppose the Nova Open) Ressers have won as far as I know once, by Joe Wood in 2015, and I believe he won the event using the Kirai summoning engine (as a side note Kirai happens to be a master I do feel could use some sanding down) without even using a belle, though I might be mistaken.

The rankings events from the UK, which from what I gather is one of the more highly competitive and varied metas in the world shows a pretty good spread of factions winning, with NB winning significantly more of the time more often than others, at least in the past 6 months or so, with close to a 3 to 1 ratio over ressers. So even if we assume, again for the sake of argument, that the Belles are OP it again isn't showing in the number of wins that are accumulating. Which is actually what the definition of play testing is. Belles are costed at 5SS, have been since M2E came out, Ressers aren't winning more than other factions, which supports the conclusion that as a faction they seem pretty well balanced against the others. You'd actually have a better argument, though I would still argue a pretty weak one, that Guild needs cuddling more than Ressers do at the moment since a Guild list, played by the same player, and with little to no model swapping won Adepticon and Gen Con in the same year, and they won the Nythera world wide event (which btw Ressers finished last in). If ressers had done that I can easily see those who think the belle needs to change holding it up as certifiable, indisputable, written in stone and blood proof that the Rotten Belle needed to be changed, and though I don't think jot would be definitive at least there would be some actual hard support for the sentiment. Yet there doesn't seem to be the same certitude about the models in that list. Interesting don't you think?

Now you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm not saying you have to like Rotten Belles, or believe they are balanced. You are free to believe anything you want, and you might even have some justification for it in your particular area, but if you wish to lobby to change them for everyone you need hard, documented evidence to show that whatever their cost that they are causing an imbalance in the game, and not just an imbalance, an imbalance that is great enough that it is worth Wyrd going through all the effort and logistics and fall out to change for the ultimate betterment of the game. I don't feel you've come anywhere close to achieving that with any argument you've made, and Justin has made his position clear on it as well. Here is a quote from a thread that was in response to one of the numerous early Belles are too good, cuddle them now threads.

 

Justin Said:

"But when it comes to making changes, it comes down to one big question: do I agree with the change?

Not that I'm always right, or the best Malifaux player or anything. But I spend 8 hours a day doing this and someone has to make the call. You'll notice the change to Nexus [of Power] came pretty quick (literally as soon as possible with the first FAQ update) and that was making something less powerful. So buffing does not always happen faster than cuddling (although, again, I understand that your point is just about how people argue).

The Samurai is a similar case. The point was raised, I playtested them myself, and I think they didn't receive nearly enough testing in wave 1, so I'm attempting to fix it.

In the case of Belle spam, well, I frankly just disagree. I playtested it in wave 1, tested it when the point was raised, and just don't think a cuddle is necessary. Now, don't get me wrong, if evidence is produced to the contrary I will gladly change my mind, but that's where we are right now. Are Belles great models? Absolutely. But, balance is never perfect, (emphasis here is mine, F.S.) and I just don't think they're anywhere near errata territory.

As for the Mech Rider, the point was raised relatively recently, and I haven't tested it myself yet (other than during the wave 2 test). So I will try it again, and come to my conclusions then. My initial hypothesis is that it's fine. But models at a higher stone level always have more swingy effects on a game, so I am moderately more concerned about it than I was about Belles.

So, all argument aside, that's where these things sit, officially."

If you Google search Justin Buffing vs n e r f i n g (sorry for the spaced word, trying to prevent the auto cuddle) you can read the thread.

To my knowledge, though to be certain only Justin and the folks at Wyrd would know, there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary from that position when that thread was posted. Now obviously I could be wrong, very possibly something has come to his attention that has shifted his opinion and he is just itching to get his word processor out for the next FAQ/Errata update next month. But at the moment, I'd at least personally doubt it. Now if you disagree I'd recommend you do what I did in 1.5. If you think Belles are OP then get/proxy some, and play them in competitive environments against the best players you can and PROVE it. At least then you'd have some data points to swing the argument in your favor. That isn't to say there is no evidence for your position, just that it's never been enough, with the arguments that have been provided to this point to change the delvers mind. If you have some I personally would love to discuss it.

[Surrealistik]

@Fetid Strumpet

As mentioned before, your entire argument is reducible to what is an essentially unproven and unprovable assertion that the 'new best models' post balancing will always be so much better than the other models that list diversity won't actually increase.

This is false. That new overwhelmingly dominant models which suppress list diversity as much as the old ones may result is a possibility but not a certainty. In fact, in a game like Malifaux where you have variable win conditions every game such that niche picks often get more time in the sun than they otherwise would have, it is probably more likely to be false than true assuming an earnest and well-tested attempt is made to rebalance overpowered models. Though I agree that there will always be a 'best', and that it will appear more often in competitive lists than other models, the simple fact is that if the margin by which this 'new best' is superior to other models is significantly less than the margin by which the 'old best' was, you will undoubtedly see more build diversity, particularly when that margin is so thin that it consistently fails to compensate for the situational strengths of 'lesser' models vis a vis the objectives that come up.

 

With respect to getting hard data on Belles, or any other model, unfortunately even if I were to go full bore into this endeavour, it would not be enough because I am one person and my experience by itself is ultimately anecdotal.

The only real hard data that exists in determining whether a model is objectively problematic and meta distorting are the very piecemeal, scattershot battle reports that exist in terms of tournament play; making efforts to more faithfully and comprehensively collect and aggregate tournament battle report data to signify problem models (i.e. ones that are ubiquitous, particularly those that match forum suspicions of being OP) would be a far better investment of time and effort, and this is something I've fully supported since I've started playing Malifaux. Unfortunately I'm one man, and I can't do it alone. That having been said, I think the forums are a great launching point for identifying potential problems and imagining solutions, with tournament play results and reports being used to confirm suspicions as well as Wyrd's own internal testing.

[Vorschlag]

Ratjoys an easy fix if you justify things with the fluff.

The fluff says only Hamelin can control the rats, he boasts about this, even before being swallowed by plague he has a little ego trip over the fact that not even Marcus the mighty beast master can control the Malifaux grey rat.

So either make rats only able to be hired by Hamelin, or apply a special rule like rats may not form a rat king (much like corphyee duet) if the leader is not Hamelin.
Alternatively they could lose control much like a warpig if Hamlin is not the leader - must spend activation walking as far from all other models as possible but will attack if engaged.

But I'm yet to actually face a Ratjoy list so my only objection at this stage is based on fluff and hearsay.  

[Omenbringer]

I seem to recall last edition that some of Hamelin's crew had hiring restrictions to keep the shenanigans from getting out of hand. Wonder why those weren't carried over.

[Fetid Strumpet]

All the outcast masters did. They all broke the rules of the basic game in major ways and generally couldn't hire general outcast models. They all had their own basic sub faction of models they could hire from outcasts and other factions. When they shifted to 2e they got rid of the hiring limitations, opened the who faction to them, and generally allowed them to keep all the extra models they could hire as well. 

[lusciousmccabe]

7 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

When they shifted to 2e they got rid of the hiring limitations, opened the who faction to them, and generally allowed Leveticus to keep all the extra models he could hire as well. 

Fixed that for you. Because Hamelin loves having access to all those Ht 1 and insignificant models.

And don't get me started on Som'er...

 

[Ludvig]

44 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Fixed that for you. Because Hamelin loves having access to all those Ht 1 and insignificant models.

And don't get me started on Som'er...

 

You'd think the addition of an actual whole faction of models to hire would kind of make up for it in Som'ers case...