July FAQ - Leveticus and Malifaux Rat Errata

[Fetid Strumpet]

The argument is based on a particular philosophy of game design, not actually based on a mechanical examination on how it actually effects the game. Which is fair, we all have different perspectives and priorities in what we prefer in games. The difference philosophically, is that the opponent actually had to do something to Ramos' crew. It doesn't matter if the steps they had to do are trivial, or almost automatic, or that just be using your crew against Ramos' they were going to happen and almost nothing could stop it. The fact that they actually did something is what philosophically matters. I'm not denigrating them for holding that idea. I have philosophical issues with several aspects of the rules, but ultimately I think what is more important is actually how the rules affect the gameplay itself. I don't think that Neutralize the leader mechanically spoils the game in anyway.

[Durza]

And dropping Levi past half wounds, or getting him buried without the opponents help is on whoever is playing him, his sac himself to summon a waif isn't his only (0) action. And now channel is once per turn getting him to half wounds is over 2 turns, if you take something to heal him you arent giving up wounds without your opponents help. 

[Kadeton]

38 minutes ago, Durza said:

And dropping Levi past half wounds, or getting him buried without the opponents help is on whoever is playing him, his sac himself to summon a waif isn't his only (0) action. And now channel is once per turn getting him to half wounds is over 2 turns, if you take something to heal him you arent giving up wounds without your opponents help. 

Exactly. The fallacy in the "Playing Levy as intended is free Neutralize points" argument is thinking that there is only one intended way to play Levy. Making every Master viable in every situation was one of the goals of M2E, but the main approach to achieving that is to give every Master a set of options when tackling a situation.

Ramos is most comfortable in his role as a summoner, but you can play him as a tanky beater instead and still win. Perdita is most comfortable in the primary damage role, but you can use her as a mobile area-controller if the situation calls for it. Etc, etc.

Leveticus is most comfortable in his death-rebirth cycle, but that's an option. The point of these changes, and the GG2016 schemes (at least in part) is to encourage players to explore his other options.

[daniello_s]

4 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Exactly. The fallacy in the "Playing Levy as intended is free Neutralize points" argument is thinking that there is only one intended way to play Levy. Making every Master viable in every situation was one of the goals of M2E, but the main approach to achieving that is to give every Master a set of options when tackling a situation.

Ramos is most comfortable in his role as a summoner, but you can play him as a tanky beater instead and still win. Perdita is most comfortable in the primary damage role, but you can use her as a mobile area-controller if the situation calls for it. Etc, etc.

Leveticus is most comfortable in his death-rebirth cycle, but that's an option. The point of these changes, and the GG2016 schemes (at least in part) is to encourage players to explore his other options.

Well, at least Ramos and Perdita have some other actions than attack actions only so they can be used in different roles. Levi doesn't have this option so he is really stuck to one and single role - damage dealer. And if he can't utilize his death-rebirth cycle fully during the game he can't even successfully perform in this task so death-rebirth cycle is almost a must thing when you play him. 

[Jafar]

30 minutes ago, daniello_s said:

Well, at least Ramos and Perdita have some other actions than attack actions only so they can be used in different roles. Levi doesn't have this option so he is really stuck to one and single role - damage dealer. And if he can't utilize his death-rebirth cycle fully during the game he can't even successfully perform in this task so death-rebirth cycle is almost a must thing when you play him. 

I agree with you, I am thinking about some "summoning" build, but during weekend I found one BIG on this, you need high crow cards for that, and in 99% of time, I prefer to use them for killing stuff and summoning abomination, not only summoning

Killing and summoning > only summoning

[Kadeton]

39 minutes ago, daniello_s said:

Well, at least Ramos and Perdita have some other actions than attack actions only so they can be used in different roles. Levi doesn't have this option so he is really stuck to one and single role - damage dealer. And if he can't utilize his death-rebirth cycle fully during the game he can't even successfully perform in this task so death-rebirth cycle is almost a must thing when you play him. 

Yes, I've noticed you keep saying that.

Leveticus has a 10+" teleport / card cycling action and the option of Transfigure, neither of which deal any damage. But quite aside from that, the main shift in Levy's playstyle that I expect to see from these changes is not from "damage dealer" to "support" or "control", it's a more subtle shift from "alpha strike" to "finisher".

Levy's dominant previous playstyle was to activate very early in the turn, pick an(y) enemy model, and burn it to dust. Now that's significantly harder for him to do! That doesn't mean he can't deal damage, but his unequalled specialty is to overcome his targets' defenses, especially Hard to Kill and soulstone use, which would otherwise be used to save a weakened model from death. His summoning is also keyed to finishing off models. The overall effect is to shift his style towards activating later in the turn and dealing the finishing blow to models already weakened by the rest of his crew. Death/Rebirth is not an integral part of that approach, it's more of a safety net.

So yes, in a way, Levy is still a primary damage dealer... what has changed is the nature of his preferred targets. Give him a try with that in mind.

It's also worth noting that Levy's "support" aspect, if he can be said to have such a thing, comes not from his actions but his hiring pool. While he may not take part in the synergistic crew combinations directly, he has access to crews and model interactions that are completely unique in this game. That's something that has to be factored into his power level... and now, to a more accurate extent, it is.

[daniello_s]

Kindly reminder that this amazing teleport/card cycle comes with the price of the sacrificed model so either you always have A&D and stick to one side of the board or you are willing to sacrifice hired model (or summoned later in the game) to get this trick. Fore more this trick is more than a gamble once one of your Waifs is dead and you have last one somewhere on the board.

BTW Levi will still have to go quite early in the turn to do something useful for his crew - no one will wait with his model near Levi waiting to be blasted to pieces and will run away from him or go into hard cover. Of course Levi can sacrifice his model to jump closer to the target as long as it is worthy. The only way when he can activate later in the turn is when he hires Belles and Doxies

As for prioritizing targets I fully agree - now you have to choose even more carefully what you attack, when you attack and already weaken models will be a prime target for him. 

[trikk]

Just now, daniello_s said:

BTW Levi will still have to go quite early in the turn to do something useful for his crew - no one will wait with his model near Levi waiting to be blasted to pieces and will run away from him or go into hard cover. 

If only Levi could hire Watchers.... oh wait!

[daniello_s]

If only I could expect my opponent to kindly push his model towards my Levi and Watcher or patiently wait for me to position this death trap...

[Sklertic]

I think his damage is fine now. He actually has to put in some effort to kill stuff now, which some players might find annoying, but that's how it is.

You choose faction, not master, in this game, and if you willingly pick Leveticus into the earlier mentioned strats and schemes, then you're not really playing well, and poor plays gets punished.

He's still really good, he's just not borderline broken now. (This is mostly directed at the old channel abilitry).

[jondoe297]

Used levy at the weekend, for one game so I cant make a full judgement yet (Note I have played levy faily extensively and feel I had a pretty good handle on him imo)

However, Im not sure the sky has fallen.

I was not a big fan of the channel rule but in playing it wasnt terrible (I would have argued a different path perhaps but none the less) I enjoyed the different style he brought, most turns he activated very late on and finished a model off making an abom or one turn with cqards in hand he tore apart a ronin. He can still do it, just no longer can be so ballsy with his positioning. It was a bit more tatical rather than auto delete which I get was needed.

However I dont understand the cache drop (I havent bothered reading everything so maybe a reasoning was given that I missed) that I feel is too much (i know its only one stone, but I think its too deep imo)

And genuinely believe neutralise the leader needs to be errata'd to requiring an enemy action to make you leave the board for the two points given up.  

I like the fact hes no longer a go too master.

So in summary my initail thoughts

Levy isnt ruined playstyle wise just an alteration

cache should have remained

Neutralise sucks balls

IMO

[Kadeton]

41 minutes ago, daniello_s said:

Kindly reminder that this amazing teleport/card cycle comes with the price of the sacrificed model so either you always have A&D and stick to one side of the board or you are willing to sacrifice hired model (or summoned later in the game) to get this trick. Fore more this trick is more than a gamble once one of your Waifs is dead and you have last one somewhere on the board.

I'm pretty sure that ability was basically purpose-built with summoned Abominations in mind, and A&D just makes it easier early in the game. That said, I've had situations before where I've sacrificed hired models - it's all about getting the most value at the time. Sometimes the extra cards or movement are worth more than another activation.

As for it being a gamble... every other Master manages to gamble with putting their life at the mercy of the enemy from time to time. In Levy's case, being out of position is far less of a gamble, as long as you've still got a Waif.

Quote

BTW Levi will still have to go quite early in the turn to do something useful for his crew - no one will wait with his model near Levi waiting to be blasted to pieces and will run away from him or go into hard cover. Of course Levi can sacrifice his model to jump closer to the target as long as it is worthy. The only way when he can activate later in the turn is when he hires Belles and Doxies

I'll admit that hiring Belles is one of my favourite things to do with Levy, so there's that. But by that logic, surely no models would ever be left "waiting to be blasted to pieces" and would "run away from [the enemy] or go into hard cover" regardless of who the opposing Master was, and nobody would ever die? Things activate, they get out of position, they can't always run away to survive. Levy will still get the opportunity to kill things, trust me... and if they genuinely do just run their whole crew away from him (and the objectives) rather than give him targets then you'll easily win the game.

[Durza]

20 minutes ago, jondoe297 said:

And genuinely believe neutralise the leader needs to be errata'd to requiring an enemy action to make you leave the board for the two points given up.  

The problem with that is Levi buries himself,  the enemy might kill him but it's his own ability that buries him.

[jondoe297]

I'm sure something could be worded along the lines of when enemy leader is reduced to 0 wounds due to an enemy action score 2 points 

Or something to that effect

[trikk]

7 minutes ago, jondoe297 said:

I'm sure something could be worded along the lines of when enemy leader is reduced to 0 wounds due to an enemy action score 2 points 

Or something to that effect

That would make it work against Hamelin, Collette etc. I believe

[Adran]

Just now, jondoe297 said:

I'm sure something could be worded along the lines of when enemy leader is reduced to 0 wounds due to an enemy action score 2 points 

Or something to that effect

You could probably come up with some sort of wording that would do that. But How often is Leveticus on the table to allow the opponent to even attack him? That wording would be harder than assassinate to score. 

with the new errata its even harder than before to score 3 points for Neutralise against levi. But the choice to give 2 points to your opponent is yours and your play style with Levi. You can completely play Levi and never bury him. With your wording you are even further rewarding the dominant play style of "Activate Levi early, do his stuff and disappear". 

The way Levi's rebirth  is worded in the rules, any sort of kill the leader type scheme will either be rubbish against him, or strong against him. And the justification on the 2016 gaining grounds, was you have the choice over picking Levi, so making the scheme strong against him is fairer than making the scheme weak against him, because your opponent can't decide who you field. (There may be a compromise, but I can't see one at the moment. And it may be that the compromise is flip flop each new set of schemes between   a kill one which is hard against Levi, and a kill one which is easy against Levi)

[jondoe297]

Fine with me, get rid of neutralise the leader ?

If you don't use his birth death cycle and his fast movement aren't you losing one of his core themes that has been used as a positive  ability that he has still kept?

[Adran]

22 minutes ago, jondoe297 said:

Fine with me, get rid of neutralise the leader ?

If you don't use his birth death cycle and his fast movement aren't you losing one of his core themes that has been used as a positive  ability that he has still kept?

Yes. Not using his death/rebirth cycle will reduce his positioning element.  Its up to you if that reduction in his power is worth 2 VP in that game. Its just like Playing Seamus on a board with no Blocking terrain.   (And I know you offered to count the trees as blocking, but I wouldn't normally have done so. I shouldn't re-define a board to fit my crew, I pick the crew to match the board and schemes and strategy, and play my game based on what I pick and think my opponent has). What is the optimal play should change game by game, if not turn by turn. Sometimes not doing the "most powerful things" is actually the best way to win. 

Perhaps if you pick Seamus you're allowed to put 3 blocking terrain pieces on the board, and Waldigiests can add the severe trait to 5 terrain pieces, and Jakuni ubaumi and the drowned will add hazadous to everything. 

Not every action on a card needs to be usable every game. And levi can still use his mechanics if you want, there is just a cost for it. You get to decide if the mechanic is worth the cost. 

[jondoe297]

I genuinely play single trees as blocking, the offer was a genuine to how I play.

Actually its was stated as a main theme of his that was not wanting to be touched (his birth death cycle) So as flippant as you are being -

lets have a scheme where when lilith targets someone out of los you lose a vp.

When Mccabe jumps off his horse lose vp.

When Colette uses a scheme marker lose a vp.

Etc Etc

Seamus has a way round not having blocking terrain can I have something for levy then that will help with ntl? ...

Being as its stated as a CORE MECHANIC on his card.

Slight tangent, Like I said in my original post, Levy isnt ruined like some naysayers have said, but being quoted to originally that neutralise the leader was a fuck levy scheme rankles now that he has taken (a much needed) cuddle.

Too answer your later point there should be more hazardous terrain used (I try to squeeze it in when I can)

 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, jondoe297 said:

Actually its was stated as a main theme of his that was not wanting to be touched (his birth death cycle) So as flippant as you are being -

lets have a scheme where when lilith targets someone out of los you lose a vp.

When Mccabe jumps off his horse lose vp.

When Colette uses a scheme marker lose a vp.

Actually both of thse masters are hit by neutralise. They have lower than expected wound pools because they have healing on death type effects. 

We are kind of discussing 2 different things, and I'm going to separate them again. 

Levi hasn't had his core mechanics hit by the errata. He still has his death and re-birth mechanic. what he doesn't do is hit as well as he used to, as he has few positive flips to hit and damage than before. 

 

With Regards to gaining grounds 2016, and Neutralise in particular. It is much easier to score against anyone now. The first point is for getting them down to half wounds. 

Leveticus, Dreamer are more likely to give away points for being removed from the table, as their own mechanics do so. But any master with a low wound count and other defenses, like Colette, or McCabe or Hamlin have also been hurt relatively more than other masters because they are natuarlly going to go to 1/2 wounds more often. Prior to the errata Levi was in a double whammy. His normal turn would see him spend 6 wounds, and then bury. That automatically gives the full points away. So yes, he is the master that likes this least of all. The errata actually helps with this, Levi can't reduce himself down to 3 wounds during his turn, so he is now less hosed by Neutralise than he was last week. 

But My counter argument is that Levi had it extra easy in the old schemes, without people really appreciating it. Everyone knew he was virtually immune to Assassinate, and very hard to deliver a message to. He was also able to remove cursed object and distract from himself without spending AP. That's 4 schemes that he was personally virtually immune to and with a slightly strange crew build, his crew could also be immune to.  Maybe that contributed to his over powered feel without people fully appreciating it, because in a large majority of the games, you weren't able to achieve the 5 schemes because your opponent chose Levi. 

[moxypoo]

I feel compelled to chime in on the Neutralize the Leader conversation.

Yes, playing Leveticus (or Dreamer) the way he's intended if your opponent picks Neutralize the Leader will give up VP. However, both of those factions have 6 other masters (7 when Ripples of Fate comes out), so just pick one of them when that scheme comes up.

In regard to the stated design goals of M2E, remember that "viable" does not mean "optimal" and it certainly doesn't mean that every master is equally powerful in every strategy and scheme combination.  Fetid_Strumpet has a good discussion of this point a few pages back. The reason you see the scheme pool before choosing your list is to tailor your list to the objectives. If you choose a crew unsuited for the objectives, that's simply poor play. Choosing Leveticus for Neutralize the leader both pre- and post errata is a sub-optimal choice for Neutralize the Leader, just as Ashes and Dust is a poor choice for Murder Protege when used as designed. It's a poor argument to say that you can't use a model "how it's designed" when you're deliberately choosing to run crews that are contrary to how the pre-game setup (choosing objectives and crews) is designed.

[jondoe297]

Funny I know how the game works, I have played a number of games and understand a thing or two about it! I know how to build a list to the strats and schemes. I understand the concept.

Now I do believe Levy is the optimal choice for reccointre, stake a claim and intereference in the way I approach the game. Now if NtL is in the pool I have to choose an 'weaker master' or lose auto 3 points. Thats pretty unenjoyable situation as I have come to play games.

I dont like Neutralise the Leader at all, regardless of whether is to do with Levy or any other master I run. (I do run one or two different master but thank you for pointing out there is an option)

I think it was a weak fix against a master that was top of its power curve.

This is going round in circles, lets just agree that I am better and thus right!

Excellent!

You also missed out on the cache factor Phil, *shakes head* poor oversight.

[Sklertic]

It is what it is.

As mentioned several times already, if you pick Levi into those strats/schemes, then deal with it.

[Math Mathonwy]

4 minutes ago, jondoe297 said:

Now I do believe Levy is the optimal choice for reccointre, stake a claim and intereference in the way I approach the game. Now if NtL is in the pool I have to choose an 'weaker master' or lose auto 3 points. Thats pretty unenjoyable situation as I have come to play games.

And no other Scheme makes an "optimal" Master for a Strategy less optimal? I find that the interplay between Schemes and Strategies is the main strength of the Malifaux scenario system and you highlight why it is so. Because if Levi is the optimal choice for Interference it is excellent design that certain Schemes make him less so. Ramos might also be an "optimal choice" for Interference but Hunting Party will hurt his "intended" playstyle. And you might end up choosing someone else for Interference. That's awesome!

It's definitely a feature and not a bug in my book. Heck, it's one of the main features, I would say.

[moxypoo]

3 minutes ago, jondoe297 said:

Now I do believe Levy is the optimal choice for reccointre, stake a claim and intereference in the way I approach the game. Now if NtL is in the pool I have to choose an 'weaker master' or lose auto 3 points. Thats pretty unenjoyable situation as I have come to play games.

So how do these errata affect this point? This was true pre- and post- errata.

I dont like Neutralise the Leader at all, regardless of whether is to do with Levy or any other master I run. (I do run one or two different master but thank you for pointing out there is an option)

If you're arguing against the existence of NtL, that's a different argument entirely, and we can certainly talk about it. Although this might not be the best thread in which to have that discussion.

I think it was a weak fix against a master that was top of its power curve.

What would you propose instead?

You also missed out on the cache factor Phil, *shakes head* poor oversight.

I don't think +/- 1 SS in cache is enough to make or break a master. People might disagree with me. Also, I'm not sure whether this part was directed at me. 

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but keep in mind that the Neutralize the Leader argument (at least in a competitive tournament sense) hinges on it being an undue burden on Leveticus. You'd have to prove that this scheme was responsible for making Levy's win rate drop much lower than that of other masters.