Are we actually underpowered?

[trikk]

I have never played Nellie with Outcast Minions and I would probably not waste embedded on minions that aren't 2 trappers which are 1SS cheaper than any other faction.

Lucius and Hoffman don't require them. They have access to them. Thats not the same.

 

I think Wave 4 was more important to us because combined with the errata we have 2 potent masters nof focussed on killing. Nellie fills a way more crucial niche for us than Sandeep does for Arcanists or Reva in Ressurectionists. I also feel she is very powerful and allows for a lot of tricks. I didn't unlock her full potential yet but even without it she is very good.

I honestly don't care about rankings that much. I feel about my personal experience when players I consider more or less my level. And here I don't feel I'm struggling after the errata. I think if the top 5 people swapped to Guild and played them for a few months then probably the top 5 would have a lot of Guild

[JDAntoine]

4 minutes ago, trikk said:

I honestly don't care about rankings that much. I feel about my personal experience when players I consider more or less my level. And here I don't feel I'm struggling after the errata. I think if the top 5 people swapped to Guild and played them for a few months then probably the top 5 would have a lot of Guild

Let it be clear, I'm not struggling with the errata either.

The objective assessment of it however does favour inclusions of rankings and not personal experience.

I believe the reason as to why the top doesn't swap to Guild is because it has less exciting numbers of competative choices.

[Math Mathonwy]

38 minutes ago, JDAntoine said:

Your opinion really. 

I think that my point eluded you. When you list things like you did as "one positive and two negatives results in a negative, therefore a net loss, Q.E.D." without taking into account the severity of the positives or negatives, that kinda makes the whole analysis completely useless.

I'm not even disagreeing with your end result, necessarily - getting hit in the upper echelons (Papa box) while getting "compensated" in the lower echelons (Lucius) doesn't result in a stronger game. But trying to frame the conversation like you did is silly at best and dishonest at worst. Franc being boxable or not doesn't affect Guild's balance as a faction one whit and rolling back on that errata wouldn't magically make the Guild great again.

38 minutes ago, JDAntoine said:

I've seen some very dodgy ranking from you in the past, which put Perdita on the top, I love her but she isn't there.

Haha!  

Who is better than her, then? McCabe? Nope, you see, Perdita has Obey, high Df, high Wp, and good shooting. Meanwhile McCabe simply has two damage tracks, loanable Upgrades and a Horse. So Perdita wins 4-3! Did I convince you?

I do appreciate that you take the time to commit my rankings to memory, though!

38 minutes ago, JDAntoine said:

What we gained in Lucius we equally lost in Frank, Austringer and Loco combinations. Boxing models at the key moments is not doing it wrong  

Certainly not, but how often did you box Franc? Honestly? Once in a hundred games, maybe? So listing that as a negative is simply silly.

[trikk]

But you can asses rankings and wave 4 as a lot of models aren't out yet and the errata is official for 6 days?

 

Or they just don't like it from other reasons like models and playstyle. I think for example the OC in rankings are currently skewered by Rat and Leveticus errata. A lot of the good scores were done before the changes. Apart from that UK ranking has 2 gremlins, 1 NB, 2 resser, 1 arcanist, 1 Guild and 2 TT. I would also point out the current ranking system isn't exactly ideal for cross faction comparison

[JDAntoine]

1 minute ago, trikk said:

But you can asses rankings and wave 4 as a lot of models aren't out yet and the errata is official for 6 days?

The awnser to that is yes, we know where we stood.

What leads you to assume that Wave 4 favours Guild more as other factions?

If every faction gets +3 competative choices, it doesn't alter the starting number of the previous waves.

[Math Mathonwy]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

I think the win McMourning has over McCabe is that he has an option to not give FFM points. 

Hmm, interesting thought. Do you manage to avoid FFM often with McM?

1 hour ago, trikk said:

I don't think anyone said he's better than McCabe. I do however think that he isn't a bad option in general.

Ah, yeah, there is, I think, kinda two ways of thinking about viability and worth of a Master. One is in isolation and one is compared to the other choices in the faction. For example, (before Wisps) Zoraida was generally seen as not really doing anything that the Dreamer and Collodi do and they have additional stuff as well. So even though Zoraida, in isolation, was a fair Master, one could rank her really low tier due to her being superceded by others in Faction. And this would also make McM, IMO, pretty non-viable due to McCabe being better (other than possibly the FFM thing).

There are, of course, pros and cons to both approaches.

[trikk]

10 minutes ago, JDAntoine said:

The awnser to that is yes, we know where we stood.

What leads you to assume that Wave 4 favours Guild more as other factions?

If every faction gets +3 competative choices, it doesn't alter the starting number of the previous waves.

Cannot agree as it isn't that simple.

 

Resers have necropunks. They can do Stake a Claim really easy. Guild doesn't have a lot of models than can do Stake a Claim.

 

Guild and Resser get viable options but Guild gets a model than can easily do stake a claim.

We both have +3 competetive choices but we're ahead. Thats why Nellie is very good. She punishes interact heavy lists and is a control master which gives us way more options we can do from a scheme pool perspective.

The fact two models is competetive doesn't mean that they give an equal amount of power.

 

@Math Mathonwy

I hate playing McCabe and it has nothing with power level. I think vs heavy armor lists he probably is better. Especially if you bring the child for extra precise and a precise peacekeeper with Min 4 is better than a min 2 saber.

McCabe also quite easily gives out 2 pts in ETL.

I generally agree with you and I don't have enough experience with McCabe to competently say one is better than the other

 

As for Zoraida I think her niche was mirror matches vs NB

[JDAntoine]

10 minutes ago, trikk said:

Cannot agree as it isn't that simple.

 

Resers have necropunks. They can do Stake a Claim really easy. Guild doesn't have a lot of models than can do Stake a Claim.

 

Guild and Resser get viable options but Guild gets a model than can easily do stake a claim.

We both have +3 competetive choices but we're ahead. Thats why Nellie is very good. She punishes interact heavy lists and is a control master which gives us way more options we can do from a scheme pool perspective.

The fact two models is competetive doesn't mean that they give an equal amount of power.

Well the intention of ratings is that it leaves an indication of the after affect. I'm willing to say now that mid of 2017 Guild will not be significantly better as it was in 2016.
We can reflect upon that in 6 months. I don't know what Wave 5 has in store for us or otherwise put for the other factions.

Guild doesn't have a lot of competative viable models is my opinion. This does indeed translate aswell into 'Stake A Claim choices'.

Additional Masters do not significantly increase the factions result. Nellie is great, but as said there isn't a Wave 4 Master that I view as bad. 
Additional competative Henchmen, Enforcers and Minions play a much larger role because they are the flexability of a faction. 
The Guild currently does not have a lot of competative Henchmen, Enforcer or Minion choices, by comparison with other factions. 

[Math Mathonwy]

3 minutes ago, trikk said:

Cannot agree as it isn't that simple.

 

Resers have necropunks. They can do Stake a Claim really easy. Guild doesn't have a lot of models than can do Stake a Claim.

 

Guild and Resser get viable options but Guild gets a model than can easily do stake a claim.

We both have +3 competetive choices but we're ahead. Thats why Nellie is very good. She punishes interact heavy lists and is a control master which gives us way more options we can do from a scheme pool perspective.

The fact two models is competetive doesn't mean that they give an equal amount of power.

Yes, this!

...though since that's coming from a Printing Press, I can't discount the possibility that it is merely Guild propaganda...  

3 minutes ago, trikk said:

I hate playing McCabe and it has nothing with power level.

Oh, I absolutely love Guild McM - one of my favourites in the whole game! So not trying to dissuade anyone from playing him. But merely thinking of the competitive "objective" aspect.

[trikk]

1 minute ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Yes, this!

...though since that's coming from a Printing Press, I can't discount the possibility that it is merely Guild propaganda...  

Oh, I absolutely love Guild McM - one of my favourites in the whole game! So not trying to dissuade anyone from playing him. But merely thinking of the competitive "objective" aspect.

I don't play a lot of them competetively. I mostly play Sonnia and Nellie as they work in most scheme pools but I often ask my opponents which master they want to play against.

 

Printing Press - making pukeworm look like poop since wave 4

[Math Mathonwy]

1 minute ago, trikk said:

I don't play a lot of them competetively. I mostly play Sonnia and Nellie as they work in most scheme pools but I often ask my opponents which master they want to play against.

Do you ask them before or after playing Nellie?

 

[JDAntoine]

On a positive subjective note

I'll continue to play Guild and blast/melee away anyway. But having dugged through several sub forums, games, lists and tactica I've found the competative 'roof' of the Guild. 

Still looking very forward to blending in Nellie with Outcast choices, will update the Compendium with Merc options soon!

[daniello_s]

3 minutes ago, trikk said:

I don't play a lot of them competetively. I mostly play Sonnia and Nellie as they work in most scheme pools but I often ask my opponents which master they want to play against.

'Excuse me, would you like to meet with earthquake or would you rather prefer tornado?'

[trikk]

19 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Do you ask them before or after playing Nellie?

 

When I ask them they have 8 options to choose from. Thats mostly friendly games. I have a special group for Sonnia/Nellie treatment

 

@JDAntoine I think the competetive roof is how well you play. I think a lot of top players play very similar rosters in their faction

 

Nellie does'nt have to use Outcasts. She can hire Burt, Torakage etc for their base cost although I find things like trappers or big jake better

[trikk]

1 minute ago, daniello_s said:

'Excuse me, would you like to meet with earthquake or would you rather prefer tornado?'

Only one they weren't allowed to choose was Lucius because he wasn't painted. But if you said Hoffman in Interference it was Hoff for Interference

[JDAntoine]

9 minutes ago, trikk said:

 

@JDAntoine I think the competetive roff is how well you play. I think a lot of top players play very similar rosters in their faction

 

Nellie does'nt have to use Outcasts. She can hire Burt, Torakage etc for their base cost although I find things like trappers or big jake better

Agreed, but models (and multitudes) that are designed well, play well. Playing well isn't a total consequence of the player, most of the time it's the ease which the model rewards the player. This ease comes forth out of design. 

As an example, we still pick Frank and Austringer, not because we have to play them well to function but how well they function even when not played well. 
As an example of limited competative choices, Nova was won by Guild twice, with the exact same crew, model for model. This is not an indication for a faction that has a lot of competative choices.

No model needs anything  but the prime reason for me to play Lucius, Hoffman or Nellie is to gain acces to a lager pool of competative choices. Choices that surpass the regular Guild-exclusive choices.

Lastly, I believe the prime reason as to why Guild is the only sub-forum without Master specific tactica is because for a mightly long time we've been using the same set up for everything, because there arn't a lot of competative alternatives. This really goes way back to Wave 1 aswell. To date we still use the same set ups and suggest Franc as the auto-include next to Austringers.

 

[trikk]

I disagree. While crew definition is vital to winning I think skill is very important and crucial to win. I think I could win most games with suboptimal crews vs a player that is less skilled than me.

 

We pick Frank and Austringer because they are good models that compensate weaknesses.

 

I think the fact Nova was won twice by the same exact roster only indicates that something was wrong and needed change.

 

As for models look at doppleganger. Frank is used by around 4-5 masters. Dopple by 8.does it mean NB also lack competetive choices?

[Starrius]

Having been watching this discussion for a whlie and being one of the new players who left guild to play other factions.

 

I think the question of underpowered is actually the wrong question.

 

I think the question should be how to bring new life back to the guild with more interesting crew designs that might make players come back to the faction 

[JDAntoine]

8 minutes ago, trikk said:

I disagree. While crew definition is vital to winning I think skill is very important and crucial to win. I think I could win most games with suboptimal crews vs a player that is less skilled than me.

If the skill level at the highest levels is comparable, comparable design matters a lot.

In my games Ive met quite a lot of players with comparable skills. On tournaments even more. 

[trikk]

Just now, JDAntoine said:

If the skill level at the highest levels is comparable, comparable design matters a lot.

In my games Ive met quite a lot of players with comparable skills. On tournaments even more. 

I'm sorry but I'm lost in your opinions.

 

Do you consider us one dimensional?

Do you consider us underpowered?

Do you feel like you're handicapped while playing Guild?

Do you think we have less competetive choices than other factions?

 

[Myyrä]

4 minutes ago, JDAntoine said:

In my games Ive met quite a lot of players with comparable skills. On tournaments even more. 

Where do you play?

[JDAntoine]

28 minutes ago, trikk said:

I'm sorry but I'm lost in your opinions.

1. Do you consider us one dimensional?

2. Do you consider us underpowered?

3. Do you feel like you're handicapped while playing Guild?

4. Do you think we have less competetive choices than other factions?

 

1. Depends on your definition of one dimensional, predictable, yes. 
2. No, we have the tools to compete.
3. No, I do feel we have a lot of Henchmen, Enforcer and Minion choices who are handicapped. Which is why I do not play them competatively. 
4. Yes, the result of this is having a lower quantity competative Guild-only choices. 

  Back to assembly! @Myrra PM send!

[trikk]

3) I can say that about any faction.

4) I cannot agree.

1) This is exactly where Nellie shines.

 

I think for example we have a better choice of playable henchmen and enforcers than NB. 

I think the difference is mostly due to the fact than for example in OC a lot of models work for a specific master. You rarely saw Nothing Beast without Tara or Nix outside of Hamelin. This makes an illusion that they have a lot more competetive choices but the model pool for each master is not significantly wider than for a Guild master.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Also just as a note using the rankings as a baseline to determine if a faction is powered or not is futile.

M2E specifically is not interended to be balanced faction to faction. It is supposed to be balanced master to master. The intent is tht if you want to play malifaux you should with a "realistic" chance, be able to pick up any master and play them in any strat/scheme pool and have a decent chance to win. The rankings don't keep track of which masters were used, so it's data is already suspect when you are trying to say one faction is or is not balanced. When looking at it and seeing two ressers podium in aggraget to 1 guild podium, that might mean, for example that Kirai is competitive while the faction as a "whole" is not. I'm not arguing that is the case I'm just saying without tracking the individual masters you cannot apply faction wide results to data collected on faction. To say a Faction is or is not competitive would require a more even distribution of master's played. As has been pointed out Sonia winning multiple tournaments does not equal Guild is powerful, it just means Sonia is. The rankings do not track masters played, therefore using it to try to indicate faction balance is not viable.

[4thstringer]

13 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Also just as a note using the rankings as a baseline to determine if a faction is powered or not is futile.

M2E specifically is not interended to be balanced faction to faction. It is supposed to be balanced master to master. The intent is tht if you want to play malifaux you should with a "realistic" chance, be able to pick up any master and play them in any strat/scheme pool and have a decent chance to win. 

I feel like we've heard the exact opposite from the designers;  that the main goal is faction to faction.    I would prefer master to master,  and I think factions with only one 1 competitive style end up being hurt by people being able to counter build to easily,  but my understanding was always that the goal was faction to faction balance.