July FAQ - Leveticus and Malifaux Rat Errata

[Lordgimpet]

 

17 minutes ago, Nukemouse said:

Its hyperbole. Its still unreasonable for that scheme to give Levi/Dreamer a 2 VP disadvantage just for playing, no other scheme comes even close to that brutality. The cuddles on their own may be justified but packaged with the existence of that scheme i cannot help but see an intent to reduce the number of games he is in, not just to balance him.

Losing a third of his theoretical maximum ranged damage is not a minor change. Base 7 and the made it very likely to hit and the damage was reliable but it still didn't always hit and certainly never always got severe unless you had an amazing hand or amazing luck. He was doing amazing damage comparable to scary masters like Perdita but i think suggesting he always got 12 or will always get 8 is unreasonable.

 

Not so, It is actually possible to play both Dreamer and Levi with that scheme in the pool and not give away the VP and not cripple the master in any way. I know the last tournament I was in I never needed to bury Dreamer at all. I know it can be done with Levi also. the reason for the change in GG2016 was in its previous incarnation. it was impossible to get VP for Levi in an assassination situation, which was unfair for opponents as it put them in a situation where they had not choice or control with it in eliminating a scheme they could otherwise score with. Now this puts the choice in the hands of the Levi player as every other scheme does, you feel you can't play Levi well enough not to give up VP automatically, then use a different master for the round.

The change was well done considering possible options. not only that the detailed explanation on the design intent of the master and how the changes keep in line and even follow it even closer. given the overwhelmingly positive feedback result compared to the 1-4 sour grapes that feel they have had their toys taken from them, should try it at least or try a challenge and not walk the easy road for a change.

 

[Nukemouse]

Levi can be killed whilst buried actually, just about as often as he can be reasonably played whilst that scheme exists and is flipped, it is not a fair choice compared to any other master and any other scheme in the entire game. The wording change did not just accomplish "fixing Assassinate" having a line about scoring if the master was still buried at the end of the game would have accomplished something similar or using this Errata to cause Leveticus to die if his Waifs are all gone. Trying to play Levi without burying him is like trying to play Misaki without attacking anyone or Kirai without any spirits, its an absurd strategy and not some test of skill. If you shoot yourself in the foot and find you can no longer walk it's not because you are on the hard road, its because you have made a horrible decision, forcing Levi players to shoot themselves or not play is not "parity" or a fair choice.

None of those change notes gave any indication as to why the soulstone change was made, only the Channel change. Dismissing the concerns of Levi players as a handful of sour grapes and comparing them to children just makes you seem incredibly disrespectful.

[Mutter]

1 hour ago, daniello_s said:

Some people seem to claim that so far during Levi's activation cards were not flipped at all but instead at the start of his activation opponent was simple asking Levi's player which model/models would he like to remove from the table straight away 

Well, in truth, there were games I played with Levi where it DID feel exactly like that ...

[Astrella]

The difference between Assassinate in teh pool being an advantage for Levi and now the replacement (can't remember the name) being a disadvatage is that you have no control over what the oppenent plays, but the game is faction v faction. E.g. if I'm facing outcasts under old gaining grounds and assassinate is in the pool it's useless scheme cause my oppenent is likely to pick Leveticus. Under the new system when playing Outcasts you can just pick another master. Remember the game is balanced faction v faction.

[Nukemouse]

27 minutes ago, Astrella said:

The difference between Assassinate in teh pool being an advantage for Levi and now the replacement (can't remember the name) being a disadvatage is that you have no control over what the oppenent plays, but the game is faction v faction. E.g. if I'm facing outcasts under old gaining grounds and assassinate is in the pool it's useless scheme cause my oppenent is likely to pick Leveticus. Under the new system when playing Outcasts you can just pick another master. Remember the game is balanced faction v faction.

Perhaps it is an improvement in that sense,  but it would have been just as easy to add a clause covering masters buried at the end of the game, especially considering the new "3rd VP" section is on wounding the master rather than killing it by turn 4.

[Myyrä]

13 minutes ago, Nukemouse said:

Perhaps it is an improvement in that sense,  but it would have been just as easy to add a clause covering masters buried at the end of the game, especially considering the new "3rd VP" section is on wounding the master rather than killing it by turn 4.

The rules already say that buried models count as killed at the end of the game. The scheme is the way it is for a different reason.

[lusciousmccabe]

It's also worth noting that the gaining grounds schemes will eventually rotate out, so regardless of whether Neutralise the Commander is there to cuddle Levi it won't necessarily be doing it forever.

That and the gaining grounds schemes aren't used in every play format, wheras errata is.

[Nukemouse]

Thats a strong point lusciousmccabe, which is why i am talking about these changes and the context they are in now, so that in future i hopefully won't have any concerns. Better explaining the soulstone changes and a clearer image of why Neutralize the leader was put into the new schemes would have gone a long way to alleviate my concerns that Wyrd was being heavy handed.

Myyra what reason is that? The only thing i can think of is to reward burying the opponent's master, which still didn't need the wording it has. Also doesn't that mean Leveticus IS a viable target for Assassinate (though only at 2 points)?

[AverageBoss]

Neutralize might give your opponent an east 2 points against Leveticus.

Make Them Suffer gives them a guaranteed 3 points against The Crossroads Seven.

Yan Lo is pretty bad at scheme marker and location based objectives.

Assassinate is probably not worth the time and effort with or against Collette.

Its just a simple fact that not all models are good in all missions. This is why you build your crews after.

As for the Cache, even post cuddle, I think he is strong enough to justify Cache 1 along with the likes of Lynch and Hammy. As I stated before, his hiring abilities alone are completely bonkers and every undead and construct model in the game going forward has to take Levi (and by extension every other non-master Outcast, and cross faction constructs and undead) into account.

[Patzer]

He gets two models for free. That opens up so much for crew composition. He gets to hire out of faction models from a very large pool with barley no restriction (such as Zoraidas merc rule or Infiltration) and at a very cheap price. Thus, a cache of 1 isn't too bad.

Neutralize is bad for him, but so is for instance Hunting Party for a dedicated summoner. And that scheme will pop up way more often. If one still want to play Leve in a pool where Neutralize is in, then start plan how to deny the strategy and the other scheme. You don't have to contest all possible VPs! The Leve player will have a pretty good idea that NtL will be one of the schemes, thus it is a little bit easier to single out the other one. It also provides with some good smoke em out tactics if you hire lets say a Librarian to keep Leve running and present the idea that you will not Bury Leve. It can lead to that the opposing player will have to overextend and make mistakes. At least opening up possibilities for it. I am not saying this is ideal, just presenting new ideas.

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, Nukemouse said:

Myyra what reason is that? The only thing i can think of is to reward burying the opponent's master, which still didn't need the wording it has. Also doesn't that mean Leveticus IS a viable target for Assassinate (though only at 2 points)?

My best guess would be to kick Leveticus in the proverbial nuts, hard.

[daniello_s]

30 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

My best guess would be to kick Leveticus in the proverbial nuts, hard.

Kicking old guy in the nuts? Not nice...

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Nukemouse said:

Myyra what reason is that? The only thing i can think of is to reward burying the opponent's master, which still didn't need the wording it has. Also doesn't that mean Leveticus IS a viable target for Assassinate (though only at 2 points)?

Are you looking for the discussion which has already taken place in the annoucement thread?

or the podcast talk concerning the changes?

Note that the podcast has an interview with Mr. Gibbs concerning the changes and their interactions with masters like Leveticus and Dreamer.

 

[fauxreigner]

Just to piggyback off other comments... I'm not convinced that neutralize the leader plus Levi is the only situation where a master has to accept giving up VP to operate at maximum strength. 

Take for example hunting party against Ramos. Ramos summons wounded spiders, it's what he does. He's not gonna stop summoning spiders because of hunting party, and they will give up VP. But a good Ramos player will ensure that the summoned spiders still provide a net benefit through achieving and blocking other schemes. Just as a good Levi player will ensure his cycle of death and rebirth provides a net benefit despite giving up VP. Not to mention that neutralize isn't suited so pretty uncommon.

[edopersichetti]

Lol, I couldn't get Leveticus to play properly before, it's going to be even more challenging now
But kudos to Wyrd for their efforts and transparency, listening to the community and really trying to do their best to balance the game as much as possible (it's bloody good right now already!)

[Sordid Strumpet]

12 hours ago, Nukemouse said:

Levi can be killed whilst buried actually, just about as often as he can be reasonably played whilst that scheme exists and is flipped, it is not a fair choice compared to any other master and any other scheme in the entire game. The wording change did not just accomplish "fixing Assassinate" having a line about scoring if the master was still buried at the end of the game would have accomplished something similar or using this Errata to cause Leveticus to die if his Waifs are all gone. Trying to play Levi without burying him is like trying to play Misaki without attacking anyone or Kirai without any spirits, its an absurd strategy and not some test of skill. If you shoot yourself in the foot and find you can no longer walk it's not because you are on the hard road, its because you have made a horrible decision, forcing Levi players to shoot themselves or not play is not "parity" or a fair choice.

None of those change notes gave any indication as to why the soulstone change was made, only the Channel change. Dismissing the concerns of Levi players as a handful of sour grapes and comparing them to children just makes you seem incredibly disrespectful.

Everything that will ever be said on this topic has been said, please drop it. You won't convince anyone to change their mind, and it's unlikely anyone will change yours either so it's not a discussion worth having - much less so because it's already been had fifty times.

[katadder]

11 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

Neutralize might give your opponent an east 2 points against Leveticus.

Make Them Suffer gives them a guaranteed 3 points against The Crossroads Seven.

Yan Lo is pretty bad at scheme marker and location based objectives.

Assassinate is probably not worth the time and effort with or against Collette.

Its just a simple fact that not all models are good in all missions. This is why you build your crews after.

As for the Cache, even post cuddle, I think he is strong enough to justify Cache 1 along with the likes of Lynch and Hammy. As I stated before, his hiring abilities alone are completely bonkers and every undead and construct model in the game going forward has to take Levi (and by extension every other non-master Outcast, and cross faction constructs and undead) into account.

make them suffer (or hunting party) is no points against crossroads 7 unless you can get to the pukeworm they hide in a back corner for just this purpose of denying it.

difference between all the ones you listed and neutralise the leader when playing Levi/Dreamer is that for everything else your opponent has to do stuff to score, for this your opponent scores by you playing your master the way he was designed to be played and they dont even have to flip a card to score things.

[santaclaws01]

13 hours ago, Nukemouse said:

Myyra what reason is that? The only thing i can think of is to reward burying the opponent's master, which still didn't need the wording it has. Also doesn't that mean Leveticus IS a viable target for Assassinate (though only at 2 points)?

Assassinate requires that the master is dead before the end of the game. Buried models don't count as dead until the game is over.

On a more general note, up until a few months ago everyone thought that Channel worked the exact same way as focus. The only real change between then and now is it getting limited to once per turn. That doesn't exactly seem like that drastic of a change for him to go from the generally regarded best master to just some frail old guy wondering around the board making no contribution to the game.

[chryspainthemum]

7 hours ago, katadder said:

difference between all the ones you listed and neutralise the leader when playing Levi/Dreamer is that for everything else your opponent has to do stuff to score, for this your opponent scores by you playing your master the way he was designed to be played and they dont even have to flip a card to score things.

Yep. And? Where is it stated that every model be perfectly viable in every pool?

[trikk]

Playing Sonnia as designed in Headhunter is also giving enemy free points

[paradoxstorm]

@Justin--Thanks for the extended explanation.  

[Fetid Strumpet]

That was actually a stated design goal of M2E. This version of the game is balanced around all the masters being, generally, competitive at all scenarios. That doesn't mean that every master is equally good at everything, just that it was a publicly stated goal that if you only liked, say, Ramos, and only wanted to buy and play him you should be able to go to a tournament, play only Ramos, and not be blown out of the water just because Ramos is only good in specific situations. Balance on a master to master level was an important concept in the public statements on M2E and I believe that even though there are some masters that are generally better at some things that that goal has roughly been achieved.

From my experience, and again this is just my observations based on my personal play experience, if an opponent chooses their crew and schemes well, it is going to be VERY difficult to stop them getting all their points, or at least a good portion of their points from their schemes. A regular winning tournament player might disagree, but I find that in terms of the game itself, considered in terms of it only mattering on a game by game basis if you win or lose, and not how much you win or lose by, the game is generally going to be decided by how well the players achieve the strategy, and how well they deny the strategy at the same time to the opponent, since that is the one element both players have perfect information on. So to me it matters a little less that there are some schemes that give a little extra points for the opponent to get in the scheme pool, because they were almost certainly going to get those points anyway. And as many people have mentioned, playing slightly differently can still make the opponent have to work to get those points, or you do as other players did and say, you know what, have these three points because I'm still going to run rough shod over the rest of your crew and those 3 points are the only ones you are likely to get.

As mentioned hunting party can really mess up certain crew's day. Summoning mindless zombies, or Seishin, or generally anything Molly summons is just basically handing three points to the opponent on a silver platter. However even if they are easy points I still generally can win those games because I just play around it, accept they are going to get the points, and stop them in other areas. That doesn't mean that suddenly those crews are not viable. Just that you need to give a little extra thought into how the game is going to proceed, and that you just need to know about it before hiring your crew.

[katadder]

1 hour ago, chryspainthemum said:

Yep. And? Where is it stated that every model be perfectly viable in every pool?

nobody has said that, however you shouldnt give your opponents points for playing your master how he is supposed to be played as per levi/dreamer without your opponent actually having to even do anything

[Durza]

Playing Ramos and summoning is guaranteed points in hunting party, what's the difference between it happening turn 1 or 2 or gaving it happen with minimal effort by turn 3 or 4? The final result is the same, you've given up 3 points. You would have to try to not earn points from hunting party if Ramos is being played the way he is supposed to; spamming spiders. And if Ramos isn't spamming spiders for you to kill and is say throwing electrical fire around instead, that's as different a play style as not burying dreamer or healing Levi instead of just letting him die and burying him, which now that channel is once per turn should be easier to keep him alive.

[Dogmantra]

I don't buy the "giving up points for playing how you're supposed to play" argument because in choosing Leveticus despite knowing that Neutralise is in the pool you are already going against how the game is supposed to be played in that you're not taking schemes into account when choosing a crew.