Schemes & Stones Pre-Jan 2018 Errata (Ten Thunders)

[Khyodee]

Let us know what you think about the Ten Thunders models/upgrades we discuss in this episode here.

http://schemesandstones.podbean.com/e/episode-77-pre-jan-2018-errata-thoughts/

[Tokapondora]

The more people talk about the upcoming erratas the more I feel like Wyrd shouldn't errata weaker models to become viable. Across every SS range there's some decent alternatives, and the game's already starting to show some signs of bloat. Some models didn't make the cut and that's a shame, but there's plenty of existing models that can take their place. The only things that really need to get buffed are the weakest bottom-of-the-barrel masters, in our case Brewmaster. 

As for nerfs, here too I hope they keep it light. The game's survived for years with minimal cuddling and did quite well because it got people to actually think of ways to defeat certain models, only tackling things that actually break the game or are just not fun to play against. The '17 errata seems to have created an eagerness to nerf things people haven't adapted to yet. Really hoping these too will be kept to a minimum, mostly taking a look at a few dominating masters.

[skoatz]

11 hours ago, Tokapondora said:

As for nerfs, here too I hope they keep it light. The game's survived for years with minimal cuddling and did quite well because it got people to actually think of ways to defeat certain models, only tackling things that actually break the game or are just not fun to play against. The '17 errata seems to have created an eagerness to nerf things people haven't adapted to yet. Really hoping these too will be kept to a minimum, mostly taking a look at a few dominating masters.

I want to like this a million times.

[tomjoad]

Given that I more or less stopped playing Malifaux once they started instituting huge sweeping power-level errata I just want to help turn this into a thread of people agreeing with @Tokapondora about how it would be good to keep things to a bare minimum going forward.

[Jinn]

I'll throw in my 2 cents then. I love Erratas that buff weak models. I think that there are a lot of models that are close to playable and have a relatively unique role. In TT Torakage and High River Monks are weak enough that they are being crowded out by 5SS models and they do unique things. I want to be able to choose almost any model in, a scheme pool that suits them, without feeling as though I am reducing my crews strength by several stones worth.

I want some models to be buffed because they seem very cool but will very seldom see table time because they do not work, like Fuhatsu.

I don't think model bloat is a problem as long as these buffed models aren't overpowered as many of them are in unique areas of design. Who is Yamaziko going to be pushing out if she is buffed slightly? If Ototo is buffed in damage (and Wp please) is Yan Lo going to hire him over the Emissary or Izamu?

[Da Git]

Have to agree with @Jinn, while erratas are kinda bad and require players to make more effort book keeping, hopefully the app will take a little strain off players in that regard.

With the power creep that's been going on, it has really left some models behind.  I'd love to run a full Last Blossom crew with Misaki, Ototo, Yamaziko, Torakage, and Wokou Raiders and the like, but it's just pants... Same for an all monk crew, all nephilim crew etc.

For 10T the models that I see that really need a boost are:

Yamaziko: give her Df6 & Ml 6.  She's Misaki's teacher ffs... she should be skilled! maybe drop her damage to 2/3/4 to compensate or lose the built in rams.

Ototo: Higher Wp and min3 or built in ram

Fuhatsu: change Brace to Laugh Off

Torakage: drop to 5ss, Min 2 on the Ml (maybe impossible as 10T bros have same weapon)

Archers: make df trigger after resolving, increase df

High River Monk: just be better, there's already been quite a few threads on this already.

That's all I've got for now...  They're the biggies off the top of my head.

[Nikodemus]

Yamaziko has two things going for her, weak 3 and nimble. I'd be sad with any buff that also nerfs one of those. Then again, I actually run her occasionally. Not terribly often, but still. 

Torakage have different triggers than Bros, so even now their attacks are at least a little bit different. Not that I think their 1/3/5 spread is a problem.

[Rathnard]

While I absolutely agree that 10-T archers need a buff, I feel like you missed the core of why they're currently unplayable. It's true that they're ridiculously fragile, easy to counter and hence overcosted for what they do, but the main issue is that they're a sub-par shooter surrounded by in-faction shooters who are far superior in almost every way. It's not just the Katanaka Sniper that the archer competes with. It's the Pathfinder, the Samurai and even the Austringer and Rifleman (with McCabe) that completes for the same space as the Thunder Archer.

All of those other models have something that makes them stand out from the rest, something that gives you a reason to take them in the right circumstances. However all the Archers have is Blot the Sky (which isn't that great, even with the upgrade) and the ability to ignore other models and shoot into engagements, neither of which is worth the price tag.

If the archers were 5SS then I think they'd be at least worth considering. At 5SS they'd be a fragile, yet cheap shooter who can support your crew from behind your lines, which gives them a decent niche in the otherwise competitve world of 10-T shooters. 

 

Yamaziko...she might be fragile but I think she's alright for a 7SS Henchwoman. Min Damage 3 is pretty boss (especially for 10-T) and the discard from her "Tactics" action is brutal when combined with an Assassination-happy Misaki. I've taken her with Misaki before, and I'd gladly take her again. 

 

High River Monks are sadly just a mess. They offer nothing of note beyond MAYBE putting Burning on models Mei wants to hit. For 6SS, an okay damage dealer just isn't enough, especially in a faction that excels at having versatile models with multiple roles. If I was to try and fix them, I'd probably draw from Carlos Vasquez's/Shenlong's rules and do some of the following;
- make them immune to Burning, then gain Armour equal to their burning condition
- Give them Shenlong's lightning kick, complete with 3" melee range and possibly blast damage.
- Give them Carlo's Flaming Fists attack, complete with 3" range and triggers to spread burning or remove burning from the Monk for extra damage. 

If nothing else, I think the 3" range would give them an interesting niche, and make them super-annoying to attack once they charge in. 

[tomjoad]

I think the real problem here is the idea that every model should be equivalently playable. I assure you, there are people out there happily putting High River Monks and Archers on the table in their kitchens and LGSs. Not everything is, or can be, or should be, viable for top level tournament play. Issuing errata for these models will not ever make it so that this "perfect balance" is reached, it will only create a new worst thing to complain about.

[Mason]

16 minutes ago, tomjoad said:

I think the real problem here is the idea that every model should be equivalently playable. I assure you, there are people out there happily putting High River Monks and Archers on the table in their kitchens and LGSs. Not everything is, or can be, or should be, viable for top level tournament play. Issuing errata for these models will not ever make it so that this "perfect balance" is reached, it will only create a new worst thing to complain about.

As an example: I really enjoy Desperate Mercenaries and will often take one or two in my lists. Little dudes do some serious work for me.

[Jinn]

5 hours ago, tomjoad said:

I think the real problem here is the idea that every model should be equivalently playable. I assure you, there are people out there happily putting High River Monks and Archers on the table in their kitchens and LGSs. Not everything is, or can be, or should be, viable for top level tournament play. Issuing errata for these models will not ever make it so that this "perfect balance" is reached, it will only create a new worst thing to complain about.

I don't think anyone expects every single model to ever be equally strong, just for models to have a thing that they do quite well. Even if there is a new worst model, if that model is not worse than models that cost a stone less than it then you will see far less complaining and the game will be in a better state. Just as an example, Gremlins is often considered to have the worst within faction balance and it leaves them with less options. I don't think buffing some of the worst models is a fruitless endeavour because it will leave less of a gap between the worst models and the best models. If High River Monks were buffed a bit then they might see some play over Ten Thunders Brothers in some scheme pools and would give players an option that is good against Frame For Murder or Take One For The Team whilst also being worth 6SS.

I don't think models should, or realistically can be, equivalently playable but I do think as many models as possible should at least have a niche.

[anencephalous]

8 hours ago, tomjoad said:

I think the real problem here is the idea that every model should be equivalently playable. I assure you, there are people out there happily putting High River Monks and Archers on the table in their kitchens and LGSs. Not everything is, or can be, or should be, viable for top level tournament play. Issuing errata for these models will not ever make it so that this "perfect balance" is reached, it will only create a new worst thing to complain about.

If it doesn't matter that all models are approximately as useful, why does it matter to you if some are buffed and some are nurfed? At best, the weaker models are used more often, at worst, the old strong models are no longer played except "on the kitchen table". But if you don't see the kitchen-table-only as a problem, why would it matter which models are relegated to the kitchen? 

[Tokapondora]

Because it creates clutter and a messy game. You have to recheck the stats of every model you might want to get or are facing, which is especially annoying for newer players. Unless you order a new batch of errata'd cards you're gonna have to play with shitty print-out ones, and depending on where you live ordering cards can get far more expensive than it has any right to be. And all of this doesn't have much of a point if you're not errataing them to be good enough to be used competitively, at which point every single errata has you flirting with the line of strong and overpowered as they have to prove their worth to the already strong models in the game.

[tomjoad]

11 hours ago, anencephalous said:

If it doesn't matter that all models are approximately as useful, why does it matter to you if some are buffed and some are nurfed? At best, the weaker models are used more often, at worst, the old strong models are no longer played except "on the kitchen table". But if you don't see the kitchen-table-only as a problem, why would it matter which models are relegated to the kitchen? 

The reasons errata are bad should be self evident. It makes the models not do what the book says; it creates extra paper work you must do to play; it leads to something like last year where it took multiple printings and 3-6 months for people to get the correct updated cards; it leads to players not trusting that a model they like will be the same this month as it is next month; it leads to confusion. There is a reason that most successful games view errata as a last resort, and I am hopeful that Wyrd will return to this philosophy before it's too late.

[anencephalous]

On 11/29/2017 at 4:59 AM, tomjoad said:

The reasons errata are bad should be self evident. It makes the models not do what the book says; it creates extra paper work you must do to play; it leads to something like last year where it took multiple printings and 3-6 months for people to get the correct updated cards; it leads to players not trusting that a model they like will be the same this month as it is next month; it leads to confusion. There is a reason that most successful games view errata as a last resort, and I am hopeful that Wyrd will return to this philosophy before it's too late.

They really are not self evident to me at all. To play this game, I had to: clip off and stick together thousands of minuscule plastic parts; buy paints, brushes and tools; learn how to use said paints, brushes and tools; paint and base the minis; plastic pack the cards; learn the rules; and then finally lose my first ten games in a row trying to remember the rules. This is not an easy to get into game. Why printing out a new card and then cutting it out would be seen as an impenetrable barrier to someone who could do everything else just baffles me. 

I think lack of fairness kills games (especially for new players) much faster than a bit of additional printing.

On 11/28/2017 at 9:40 PM, Tokapondora said:

Because it creates clutter and a messy game. You have to recheck the stats of every model you might want to get or are facing, which is especially annoying for newer players. Unless you order a new batch of errata'd cards you're gonna have to play with shitty print-out ones, and depending on where you live ordering cards can get far more expensive than it has any right to be. And all of this doesn't have much of a point if you're not errataing them to be good enough to be used competitively, at which point every single errata has you flirting with the line of strong and overpowered as they have to prove their worth to the already strong models in the game.

Given a choice, I would always choose messy and fair over neat but unfair.

Having to print out a few cards is a mild inconvenience. Two friends start playing for the first time, choosing Lucius and Sandeep respectively, here the errata is going to make all the difference. Without it, what are the chances the Lucius player will keep playing the game?

Newer players have to check the stats of every model every time they play anyway, there are hundreds of models in this game, each with a unique stat line, abilities and actions. In fact, after playing for years I STILL have to check the stats of models every time I play! A few wording changes or number variations is nothing in the grander scheme of trying to get a handle on the game. But buying and playing with sub-par models is genuinely disheartening.

 

 

[tomjoad]

So, you agree that the game is already maybe a little too confusing ("after playing for years I STILL have to check the stats of models every time I play") and you think the best action for Wyrd to take to fix lingering issues is to increase the complexity?

[Jinn]

Outside of tournaments, couldn't you just ignore errata if it is too annoying for you to want to deal with? If these kitchen table players are playing casually then what is the big deal if they miss an errata? If they want to they can get the errataed versions of their models but it isn't going to be forced on them.

Players entering official tournaments will have to be a little less casual about it, that's all.

[tomjoad]

3 minutes ago, Jinn said:

Outside of tournaments, couldn't you just ignore errata if it is too annoying for you to want to deal with? If these kitchen table players are playing casually then what is the big deal if they miss an errata? If they want to they can get the errataed versions of their models but it isn't going to be forced on them.

Players entering official tournaments will have to be a little less casual about it, that's all.

Because there is a standard, without which it would be impossible to show up at your lgs and just play a game with any other Malifaux player you might run into. Also, I do play primarily in tournaments, and I think the errata has negatively affected my enjoyment of the game, so I don't know what to do about a suggestion like this one.

[anencephalous]

4 hours ago, tomjoad said:

So, you agree that the game is already maybe a little too confusing ("after playing for years I STILL have to check the stats of models every time I play") and you think the best action for Wyrd to take to fix lingering issues is to increase the complexity?

I never said it was "too confusing", not at all. In my spiel to new players I describe Malifaux as the "thinking person's tabletop game". It is a hard game, and that is awesome. Some people like simple, easy to run games; other people like games with steeper learning curves and ultimately deeper thinking. Malifaux is firmly in the latter camp. Some people like chess, some people like checkers, there is no shame in either. 

The upside to the complexity of the game is that it is much harder to become bored playing it, I tire of this game much more slowly than other games. Like the now famous story of Lego and product complexity, some product's appeal is based upon the difficulty in use. Dumbing it down or simplifying it can damage your product with your core players. 

Each new book adds complexity to the game, new models, new interactions, new counters to old strategies. And yes, I absolutely think this is a good thing. Stops the game becoming tired. So to with rotating the models that are too good or too bad, allowing more viable models.

[skoatz]

17 hours ago, tomjoad said:

So, you agree that the game is already maybe a little too confusing ("after playing for years I STILL have to check the stats of models every time I play") and you think the best action for Wyrd to take to fix lingering issues is to increase the complexity?

Pre-errata: You have to check the stats of, say, a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

Post-errata: You have to check the stats of a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

How is that more complex?  How is that different from pre-errata?  Your opponent has a new card, sure.  You're still doing the exact same thing as before.  You're still checking the card.  The only difference is that the card changed slightly.  But you were going to check the card anyway.

[WWHSD]

6 minutes ago, skoatz said:

Pre-errata: You have to check the stats of, say, a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

Post-errata: You have to check the stats of a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

How is that more complex?  How is that different from pre-errata?  Your opponent has a new card, sure.  You're still doing the exact same thing as before.  You're still checking the card.  The only difference is that the card changed slightly.  But you were going to check the card anyway.

Also, errata happens 2 times a year. It's all in one place and easy to check. There's not a lot of effort needed to stay up to date with the errata. 
 

[Adran]

3 minutes ago, skoatz said:

Pre-errata: You have to check the stats of, say, a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

Post-errata: You have to check the stats of a Death Marshal every time you play against one.

How is that more complex?  How is that different from pre-errata?  Your opponent has a new card, sure.  You're still doing the exact same thing as before.  You're still checking the card.  The only difference is that the card changed slightly.  But you were going to check the card anyway.

Thats not the issue

Post Errata you need to know that the model has been errata'd to know you're getting the upto date card to read. I know I just went to an event and printed out the January errata for models I might use, but forgot that the July errata also changed a model I might use, so it wasn't until the end of the event after I had used the model, and had people read the card I had (that was out of date) that I remembered it was errata'd. None of my Opponents that looked at it told me I had the out of date card.

 

[skoatz]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Thats not the issue

Post Errata you need to know that the model has been errata'd to know you're getting the upto date card to read. I know I just went to an event and printed out the January errata for models I might use, but forgot that the July errata also changed a model I might use, so it wasn't until the end of the event after I had used the model, and had people read the card I had (that was out of date) that I remembered it was errata'd. None of my Opponents that looked at it told me I had the out of date card.

 

I'm not saying the errata is without any issue.  I'm saying that the errata does not increase complexity.  

More specifically to your point, when I play Malifaux, I have to put some level of trust that my opponent is being honest and has all of the up-to-date information for their crew.  I can't stop at every moment to ask for a model's card in order to fact check my opponent.  I have to take at least some information from my opponent on good will.  Inevitably, things are played wrong and mistakes are made.  And that happens outside of errata'd cards and models.

Having errata'd cards and such does increase the chance of that happening.  I will admit that.  I personally think that it doesn't increase the chances of that occurring by a significant amount, but I know not everyone agrees.  However, I would rather have a twice yearly (not even that frequent) errata to improve the health of the game even if it increases the chances of things slipping through the cracks like in your example.

My only concern about the errata is that the playerbase will start shifting away from looking for ways to beat strong models/combos/synergies rather than look for an immediate nerf.  When Reva first came out, frequent topics on the forum called for cuddling her.  Now, you hardly hear much about her.  As a playerbase, we've found ways to deal with what Reva does.  However, there are certainly cases where something needs to change for the health of the game.  Which is why I said what i did in the beginning of the thread.  I hope erratas are necessary changes but kept to a minimum as much as possible.