Big Brain Brin - A hidden gem?

[daniello_s]

2 hours ago, Omenbringer said:

While I don't disagree with increasing the stuffed piglets cost (it was the same in first edition, though they had a lot more utility in that edition thanks to some interesting, but difficult combos) if you want them to go back to 2 SS in this edition (which I think is fair) something needs to change. For those of us that remember last edition, the solution is real simple...force the hiring of a Taxidermist to hire or summon Stuffed Piglets.

100% agreed.

[Aegnor]

3 hours ago, Omenbringer said:

While I don't disagree with increasing the stuffed piglets cost (it was the same in first edition, though they had a lot more utility in that edition thanks to some interesting, but difficult combos) if you want them to go back to 2 SS in this edition (which I think is fair) something needs to change. For those of us that remember last edition, the solution is real simple...force the hiring of a Taxidermist to hire or summon Stuffed Piglets.

As for Hamelin, I don't mind him having access to cheap spammable models, he was designed for that (as were most Gremlin Masters). Take that away and Hamelin would be very difficult to play at all.

I would love a change like that. To be honest there would be a lot of possible way to change them and/or the pigapult/taxidermist that i would like.

Hamelin was designed for that yes, but he can play without hiring them and have the rat engine going anyway by hiring rat catcher, rat kings, benny, stolen or that kind of things. I don't know the actual hamelin so much but my friend playing it hire like 2-3 max just to fill the ss and have a nice rat engine.

Most gremlin master were designed for that also yes, but now gremlins don't have 'cheap spammable models' anymore imho. What i mean is that a lot of factions now have 3-4ss spammable minions as well so can you really still consider bayous to be cheap spammable models now? They are just standard spammable model for me. Meanwhile our beaters are nerfed (deserved right) and we didn't get so much 'gap filling' stuff. To make one example with outcast : they had big hard hitting models and now they have cheap spammable models. We had cheap spammable models but we didn't get big hard hitting model. Like said by other people before, one of our strength an identity was the outactivating, spamming but now other factions are even in that field.

But anyway i would rather get back our 'spamming' advantage/identity than gap filling stuff because imo factions need to have signature strength/weakness/identity.

[Aegnor]

On the BBB topic. I used him in few games but my overall feel is that i took him to do one thing and he didn't do much else.

One game i knew i would face viks or tara with alphastrike so i took him to deny whirldwind and/or bishops triggers. I faced viks and he did blocked my opponent to charge and whirldwind to death so job done but as soon as the ennemy crew was near he got charged and died.

On other game i took him to give reactivate to pigapult propelled bayous in symbols. worked fine and i got my symbols vp easily. But he just stood there near bayou and pigapult putting scheme and giving reactivate and nothing else. When my opponent finally reached me he didn't got time to figth and just died to save his minions friends (to deny punish the weak) by blocking charge lines.

So yeah the model feels like a bunch of abilities that don't go well so much together. Reactivate is nice but wp4 gremlin is to restrictive and you can only do it once. Have it at 1 ap may be better or a trigger to do it again (serena style? maybe not on anything though). Maybe give it to wp5+ gremlin or not but with forced sacrifice (can't remove scheme to avoid).

Condition removal can be nice and the avoid - thing can be usefull so i have not much to say about this.

The trigger deny, wp bubble and attack actions need him to be close to the figth but he have nothing to stay alive there so it feels weird. More range or defensive ability may help here.

 

But yeah my main feel is that BBB is a melting pot of abilities and can be good for some of his abilities but since you will very rarely need more than 1-2 of his aspects you may find other models to be more usefull for the task.

[Omenbringer]

17 hours ago, Aegnor said:

On other game i took him to give reactivate to pigapult propelled bayous in symbols. worked fine and i got my symbols vp easily. But he just stood there near bayou and pigapult putting scheme and giving reactivate and nothing else. When my opponent finally reached me he didn't got time to figth and just died to save his minions friends (to deny punish the weak) by blocking charge lines.

So yeah the model feels like a bunch of abilities that don't go well so much together. Reactivate is nice but wp4 gremlin is to restrictive and you can only do it once. Have it at 1 ap may be better or a trigger to do it again (serena style? maybe not on anything though). Maybe give it to wp5+ gremlin or not but with forced sacrifice (can't remove scheme to avoid).

15 SS (almost a third of the hiring pool) is an awful lot to pay for this, even if it can increase the odds of scoring VP.

I really wish we didn't have the Pigapult as it is now. It is just another design space limiter.

Also, in regards to the Stuffed Piglets, I find it funny that they really  didn't seem to be an issue at 2 SS until the last iteration of Gaining Grounds Strats and Schemes (at least I don't recall running across many complaint threads about them until that point) where cheap activations were crucial. While it is nice that the Wyrd staffers have worked so diligently to provide fresh Strats and Schemes each year for the competitive fields, I believe they are over emphasized and really hurting the casual player base (which I suspect is a much, much larger pool of players globally). I hope this improves in the next edition, when ever that may be.

[I'm a Teapot!]

On 30.1.2018 at 3:46 AM, Aaron said:

I listen, and I read. I pay as much attention as I can... the problem is perspective. Gremlin players feel like I'm beating down on them, and it seems like anything I give them isn't right or isn't enough. When the Faction wins major events, it's a fluke or because of reason x, y, or z... which somehow always amounts to Gremlin players feeling that Gremlins aren't good enough.

There are three designers who are involved with Malifaux in the office, two of which were actively involved in the latest errata... and both of them (this includes me) play (or have played) Gremlins in this edition. When people cried Ulix was broken, we went down to the store and played it. When people complained about Mah, we played it.

Just like "Gremlin players" (which somehow manages to not include the two designers who get involved with them) have their perspective, so do we. I'm not arguing Gremlins are perfectly balanced, but I promise you they get attention. The players get listened to and the models get played. Sometimes, we'll just disagree on what needs to be done and/or how quickly everything should be addressed.

I would like to ask you a few questions and I hope you do not take them as another yelling sad gremlin's questions:

Would you consider changing or readjusting that perspective based on detailed and "as objective as possible" player citicism via email and if so, how do you value personal play experience and detailed player feedback compared to each other?

Tournament play or friendly games or something else; what is the focal point of the malifaux designer perspective? 

What is the main strengh of gremlins and how is that represented in a unique aspect that other factions cannot achieve or cannot achieve with the same efficiency?

In your perspective, do you consider bayou gremlins to be problematic models because of them being a cheap significant activation (like a major part of the non gremlin player community does) and do you think that the bayou gremlins ability to suffer half their wounds once per game to get 1 bonus ap is strong compared to being disguised or having 5 wounds, armor 1 and, most of the time, df6?

Is there a chance of an errata that includes changes to the balance of the emissaries compared to each other?

 

[Lucidicide]

A perspective is just that. It changes with all new bits of information. I'll change it as other information becomes available. I already get feedback via e-mail, PM, twitter, Facebook, etc. I generally prefer people don't reach out to me privately because 1) it prevents dialogue with other knowledgeable players and 2) they expect some sort of response. Frankly, every time I post my thoughts, I get thanked... and then argued with, referenced, etc. Sometimes, I think it would be better to stay quiet  That's not a complaint, but legitimately the more mysterious I am, the more people seem to believe in my skills.

I don't care what sort of game of Malifaux is played. Every single piece is subjective. We don't have player rankings. Even those rankings that do exist tend to be limited by geography to the point where you can't compare it to others. There's not a great way to judge player skill -- this is why we often have US vs UK type debates about what is good. I can't even begin to count the number of times UK Twitter uses have complained that I only listen to US data when I errata. While the claim is BS, the point stands: people play Malifaux differently. What makes me treat feedback differently is 1) how it synchronizes with my personal knowledge and 2) how compelling that feedback is (battle reports, lack of bias, and coherent argumentation all make feedback more compelling).

The main strength of Gremlins? Their players. And based on how much discussion they get on every issue, I'd say that there is no other Faction as efficient, per player, at promoting their desires for their Faction.

You're asking a lot of specific questions, and I'm never really going to answer questions about specific models. If I say Bayou Gremlins aren't an issue, people will start arguing like crazy. If I say they are, same thing. If I say the errata "may" contain something, that's an even bigger and louder impact.

[Omenbringer]

@Aaron The life of a developer...every action or inaction a response and rarely everyone satisfied.

[I'm a Teapot!]

14 hours ago, Aaron said:

A perspective is just that. It changes with all new bits of information. I'll change it as other information becomes available. I already get feedback via e-mail, PM, twitter, Facebook, etc. I generally prefer people don't reach out to me privately because 1) it prevents dialogue with other knowledgeable players and 2) they expect some sort of response. Frankly, every time I post my thoughts, I get thanked... and then argued with, referenced, etc. Sometimes, I think it would be better to stay quiet  That's not a complaint, but legitimately the more mysterious I am, the more people seem to believe in my skills.

While I understand the reasons for public feedback, there is always that uprising of semi helpfull "fear of change" and "everything is perfectly good as it is..." I cannot count the times I've gotten answers like "but malifaux is the best balanced game already... look at X,Y,Z those are all worse games..." and "It didnt win a tournament, therefore its balanced" in a tactical or balancing discussion with other players. And logical public debates tend to get drowned in yelling. 

From my experience in most of the metas, there are just some players that are tactical geniuses and stand out of the meta by  a margin and they do win those tournaments because of that margin and not because there faction is on the top end of the powercurve. For a balancing discussion that tournament argument seems kind of pointless to me in a game that is so playerskill dependend. I always get the answer: "well then its all good if player skill is the most important thing" but regardless there is still need to balance the game for the non geniuses. 

Also often times when I present a theory about a new way of playing a master or a crew, it rapidly gets shut down by people that fear change and I'd bet money on getting answers like "this master shouldnt be played like this" or "better take johan....".

And then, when I just block those answers from my mind and play it, it often times works really well. I've learned not to trust the internet in public discussions because the most of the time they are not logical. 

 

14 hours ago, Aaron said:

I don't care what sort of game of Malifaux is played. Every single piece is subjective. We don't have player rankings. Even those rankings that do exist tend to be limited by geography to the point where you can't compare it to others. There's not a great way to judge player skill -- this is why we often have US vs UK type debates about what is good. I can't even begin to count the number of times UK Twitter uses have complained that I only listen to US data when I errata. While the claim is BS, the point stands: people play Malifaux differently. What makes me treat feedback differently is 1) how it synchronizes with my personal knowledge and 2) how compelling that feedback is (battle reports, lack of bias, and coherent argumentation all make feedback more compelling).

So that means the best way of trying to impact the game with constuctive and positive feedback would be to write a detailed, public, logical, non-biased report on my perspective of the game and back it up with battle reports and arguments? And then I should ask you if you would like to play a game of malifaux versus me and if the answer would be yes, I'd have to beg someone for a transatlantic plain ticket. =D 

14 hours ago, Aaron said:

The main strength of Gremlins? Their players. And based on how much discussion they get on every issue, I'd say that there is no other Faction as efficient, per player, at promoting their desires for their Faction.

While I like the thematic point of being a Gremlin Crier, and I think there is a lot of value in that compliment, I still wish there was a paragraph in gg18 that would allow my local henchman to give me VP for "promoting my desires for the faction" in the tournaments he is running.  =(

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, I'm a Teapot! said:

Also often times when I present a theory about a new way of playing a master or a crew, it rapidly gets shut down by people that fear change and I'd bet money on getting answers like "this master shouldnt be played like this" or "better take johan....".

And then, when I just block those answers from my mind and play it, it often times works really well. I've learned not to trust the internet in public discussions because the most of the time they are not logica

Remember that taxidermists were utter garbage when they were released? Then someone started saying they weren't and now it's a general consensus they're pretty good. 

And there was no errata/buff to them. It was just internet opinion.

 

When you lurk long enough you just learn to take most posts as opinions, or in other words, with a moderately large grain of salt.

 

My exception are @Dogmantra and @Math Mathonwy posts because they try to keep their posts as informative as possible, with a balanced view on their opinions

[Adran]

3 hours ago, I'm a Teapot! said:

 

Also often times when I present a theory about a new way of playing a master or a crew, it rapidly gets shut down by people that fear change and I'd bet money on getting answers like "this master shouldnt be played like this" or "better take johan....".

And then, when I just block those answers from my mind and play it, it often times works really well. I've learned not to trust the internet in public discussions because the most of the time they are not logical. 

 

This!  so much this.  

Ignore what we say, and play what you want, its a much better way to find things out.  That said a discussion of "I played this wacky list, and got good results" ought to get better discussion than " this is a wacky list, should I play it?" (The answer to that is almost always yes. The only time it isn't is if you have missed a rule that makes your plan not work).

 

[I'm a Teapot!]

22 hours ago, Adran said:

This!  so much this.  

Ignore what we say, and play what you want, its a much better way to find things out.  That said a discussion of "I played this wacky list, and got good results" ought to get better discussion than " this is a wacky list, should I play it?" (The answer to that is almost always yes. The only time it isn't is if you have missed a rule that makes your plan not work).

 

It has even happened to me that I won games because my opponents were sure that my list and gameplan was trash because they read about it on the forums and underestimated it by a lot. (When people told me I wouldn’t be able to kill the enemy Master in turn 1 with a zipp showoff killjoy bomb and my opponent that the internet was right and lost asami and ohugaru turn 1) and afterwards I analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that he could have survived it if he would have respected it and that my gameplan was not really polished but far from trash.