Grave Golem woes

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just wanted to make another note:

The game is about objectives, not always finding and killing models. The grave golem seems superior on paper for objective guarding/securing (assuming corpse marker generation).

Archie is superior for tracking down key enemy models, or scheme running. And being a crooligan beacon.

To me, the two models aren't even in the same category, so don't see the desire to compare the models.

[Fetid Strumpet]

As to not being in the same category you are correct, Archie is superior in just about every metric. And you are right the game isn’t I’m entirely about killing, but 2 of the 4 strats are heavily influenced by killing, and multiple schemes are easier to deny/rely on killing to score. 

Archie excels in those, and is a good choice for scheme marker based schemes because he can drop/ destroy multiple markets per activation, and in certain scenarios can kill a scheme marker guard and destroy the scheme guarded in the same activation.

Is it possible that down the line even without errata the Golem could be a better better buy? Sure, but the schemes and strats would have to change a large amount to favoring just remaining in the game, which is what the main strength of the GG is. 

Good models are those that get through design and testing with a good balance of mobility, resiliency, and impact. Unfortunately at present, the way the game currently is configured the GG doesn’t have the right balance, in my opinion at least.

[Saduhem]

Archie is barely any different than he was in his pre-final version. The only thing that changed was whether Flurry/Numbskull were turned on or off. When either of these was off his card, he ended up being a pointless model that was either eating conditions all game or hitting once or twice a turn on min 3 (And 3 is all he's hitting for). He's got only 1 decent trigger on his close attack and his blasts do a single point of damage in the vast majority of the cases. If you're after damage, you got the wrong guy. Against anything with armor, incorporeal, or serene countenance, you're better off just jumping around and dropping markers. 

I can't see why he suddenly needs a +2 SS cost increase. Months of testing and he didn't bother anyone, if anything, he was a bag of wounds falling fast for half a year. 

The game, more than ever, is about synergy. I'd never hire Archie over a Hanged in a Daw Crew because, even if he's better on paper, he doesn't do what Jack needs. With Reva I'd take the Golem before I ever consider Archie. With Kirai, he's never coming.

Comparing models across SS brackets doesn't take any of this into account.

The damage and mobility a Rider brings to a crew is orders of magnitude higher than Archie's, and the Rider's accordingly more expensive. The Rider's turn 3 is incredibly scary and he can ferry around models in an edition where friendly pushes have been decimated across all factions.

It's waaaaay too early to ask for buffs and nerfs. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

29 minutes ago, Saduhem said:

The game, more than ever, is about synergy. I'd never hire Archie over a Hanged in a Daw Crew because, even if he's better on paper, he doesn't do what Jack needs. With Reva I'd take the Golem before I ever consider Archie. With Kirai, he's never coming.

I think this hits the nail on the head.

There have been plenty of times I have felt like Archie is an OP all star and needs a nerf (against burning and slow). And his ability to crooligan beacon in keyword is nuts. But equally he can be mediocre (looking at you, Nekima).

When looking at crews, you have to ask "what problems do I have and what models can solve them?"

In some of my Molly matchups, like Nekima and Kirai, my problem that needs to be solved is "how do I stonewall an enemy advancement?" Grave golem seems like a damn good answer to that. Archie + GG is definitely something I'm testing asap.

My Forgotten crew can already reach any portion of the board and do some solid scheming. But it really struggles at stonewalling a part of the board my enemy commits to.

Will see if I can test it out this weekend! Depends on what objectives we flip. Too excited by the idea to wait, though, so will continue to theoryfaux til then 😜

[KingJocko]

I played both Archie and Grave Golem regularly in beta and for me one doesn't invalidate the other. They are fairly similar in general as they're both 10ish ss with the same attack actions so I can see how easy it is to think they're redundant, but for me it comes down to wanting to play offensively vs defensively.

Due to his mobility and benefit from actively engaging enemies (e.g. all of his healing comes from attacking) Archie has a lot more value when it comes to getting into the enemies face and disrupting their plans. Numbskull not only protects him from the enemies, but forces him to be independent since its hard for him to be supported by allies since he cant gain beneficial conditions and Leap has him usually moving out range of short range help like Stitch Up or Painkillers. Despite all of his defensive abilities Archie has never been durable for me. Either his Df & Wp of 4 hurts him a lot or he just draws a lot of extra attention, but I rarely finish a game with him still standing. Archie is also a bit more resource intensive as at a minimum you're discarding for Flurry every turn and at most your cheating to make sure those big hits land since he's probably in a position to make it count for VP. I find Archie good for Reckoning, Plant Explosives, Assassinate, and Take Prisoner where his mobility and benefit from attacking can be advantageous.

The Grave Golem has fewer things to do which makes for a more passive play style. His lack of mobility options means he's likely to make it mid field and get stuck in with enemies or meander around picking on enemies who're trying to get at your crews weaker models. Probably the biggest contrast between him and Archie is In every game I've taken him the Grave Golem never dies and unless my opponent brings excessive corpse clearing mechanics or denies my demise I don't see it ever happening. It's gotten to the point that enemies don't even try killing the Grave Golem anymore, in one of my last games against a Jack Daw crew the Grave Golem was constantly given Staggered and was just dragged away from combat so that he wouldn't be an issue (in that game Archie would've been a better choice). Because the Grave Golem doesn't rely on triggers or discards he's much less resource intensive than Archie as the only thing he needs is one corpse on the board to be safe, leaving your hand available to fuel other more active models. The Grave Golem does well at Corrupted Idols, Turf War, Claim Jump, or Ley Line where durability and holding ground are more important.

Concern whether Archie is under costed is a possibility, but I wouldn't advocate for any changes yet. As said in this thread it's way too early in M3E's life to assume anything is OP just yet. While Archie is showing up in a lot of lists I find that more due to his versatility when you compare him to all of our regular 10ish ss hires. As previously stated I find Grave Golem more durable, but Archie comes in second place since his survivability doesn't come to the determent of his performance like the Dead Rider. When it comes to offense I think Rogue Necro is a bit more consistent, but Archie's Flurry means more opportunities to hit which can be better. It's hard to out do Dead Riders mobility, but a consistent Leap has Archie following close behind. For me it seems that while he's not the best at anything, he's pretty good at everything which edges out the more purpose focused models during list building. I would wait for some regular tournament results to come in before calling for buffs and nerfs on anything.

[marke83]

Thanks for all the comments so far, lovely discussion. I'm getting slightly more hopeful towards GG, but I gotta say it's a hilarious stretch to try to find negative aspect from flurry due to discard I mean.. I don't understand why you wouldn't want the option.

I know your point is probably that flurry is a resource intensive ability, and if the model is designed with flurry in mind, it is undeperforming when not flurrying.. still made me chuckle!

[Fetid Strumpet]

Don’t agree at all that people cannot state their opinion about a model being undercosted or overcosted until some nebulous point in the future. If you think a model is fine you have the right to say so. If you think a model is too weak or too strong you have a right to say so irregardless of how much time has passed.

I don’t expect Wyrd to change anything for some time, if they ever will, remember, unless I missed it there is no clearly defined errata policy for 3E. As far as we know their policy might be to freeze everything in Amber and issue no errata at all this edition. We just don’t know how they are going to handle it this edition at all.

That said I agree that change is unlikely and probably shouldn’t come for some time, and definitely shouldn’t happen without more data points, but to put a blanket prohibition about how it’s inappropriate to even discuss an opinion that something should change? No, gonna have to disagree with that in the strongest possible terms.

[nomoredroids]

12 hours ago, Saduhem said:

Archie is barely any different than he was in his pre-final version. The only thing that changed was whether Flurry/Numbskull were turned on or off. When either of these was off his card, he ended up being a pointless model that was either eating conditions all game or hitting once or twice a turn on min 3 (And 3 is all he's hitting for). He's got only 1 decent trigger on his close attack and his blasts do a single point of damage in the vast majority of the cases. If you're after damage, you got the wrong guy. Against anything with armor, incorporeal, or serene countenance, you're better off just jumping around and dropping markers. 

Yup. His inability to Focus really hurts his damage output. Leap is the only thing that makes him worth taking in most cases.