Jump to content
Dark Reaper

What Would You Errata? (in Guild)

Recommended Posts

I agree with almost everything that was written above. However, it seems to me that we forgot about the main thing that needs to be changed - these are guild upgrades. Obviously, compared to upgrades from other fractions, our weakest ones are in terms of variability, and Expert Marksman upgrade is not needed at all at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lead lined coat is one of best upgrades in game. But rest are pretty meh. Expert marksman ca make some use but no prisoners is just for troll builds. If no prisoners run and gun was main ability and granade was minions only it would be awesome and would fix so many guild problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another one, seems small but the impact would be great:

 

Guild Hound should be versatile (in addition to Guard)

 

That would solve the general problem, that Guild has no cheap scheme runners.

And at the second glance, you have several nice synergies:

 

In a Frontier Crew, you have a specific synergies with Paul Crocket (Beast) and in general with their Hold Down Trigger

 

In a Nellie Crew, you have a great synergy with their Annoying abilitiy: You engage an enemy model and use your "Annoying" Tactical Action. Then, the reporters use their "Headline: Secrets exposed" Trigger to take an interact action with the enemy model. Thanks to Annoying, the enemy gets Dsitracted +1. And if Nellie has activated her "Slow News Day" Tactical Action, the enemy also gains Stunned....

 

The Family Keyword (because they need it most) would get a cheap scheme runner and nice synergy with the Hound's Hold down Trigger again.

 

All other keywords would like it too....

  • Like 5
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Qracy interesting idea, personally I'd prefer pistoleros to be the family cheap schemer, but I like the idea of hounds being versatile and I can see a lot of the synergies you mention.

One thing I want to change is Nino's damage track. Give him 2/4/5 like the rest of the family (pistoleros doesn't count). 2" extra range isn't enough to justify the lower damage track when he doesn't have sniper and shooting is all he does. Especially when he's only better at it than a monster hunter when they aren't targeting Sz 3+.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Qracy 100 percent agree! I was fairly miffed when I found out the Guild Hounds weren't at least Guard and Frontier. I mean, thematically, I would make sense for Basse, the lawman of the frontier to have access to hounds. On top of that, it would make Crocket work better with the crew as you pointed out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious suggestion:

A rules FAQ declaring that a model that is forced to take the interact action must choose to drop a scheme marker or resolve a special interact if possible if there are zero scheme markers in base contact.
 

This would fix some really complicated design issues with the Nellie crew, including, Eg, Undercover Reporter’s ability to force a marker to drop and then target it with arson. It would also open the in-faction synergy with the executioner’s trail of gore.

The rules as-is for “This or That” choices seem to suggest this is the intent: it notes that you cannot choose to discard a card from hand of there are no cards. However, “remove all markers in base contact” seems like it could reasonably include the case of “remove zero markers” mathematically, even if you point out that you are not, in that case, making a choice to remove markers.

I’d love to not have to pre-confirm how this will be ruled with TO’s every tournament.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ToS-Aura:2' Interview is not over yet!: After an enemy model declares a walk or charge action this model can spend 1 focus to place itself in base contact with it after the movement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly feel like Exclusive Interview should be overhauled but I’m not sure how.  It doesn’t stack with Breaking News, and Gaining Grounds kinda ground down it’s usefulness.  If they ditched the current wording and made it hand out Distract or Stunned maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Draw to pain" make it move not push. If enemy is not stupid he will always shot from direction that will make you stop on terrain and you wil have 0 use of this ability

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eddy said:

"Draw to pain" make it move not push. If enemy is not stupid he will always shot from direction that will make you stop on terrain and you wil have 0 use of this ability

you mean drawn to pain is a push and not a move right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eddy Only if he has the opportunity to do so, there's quite a lot of situations where that would require spending an action walking, meaning you only get shot once instead of twice. I'd take that deal any day. Additionally, placing his model in a spot that would negate the push might place the model out of position or in range of one of your other models or away from an aura. Honestly Drawn to pain is a  strong ability and doesn't need a boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tweak the Marshal’s Hunt the Dead trigger to remove the undead requirement. I know it’s flavorful but so many of the crew’s triggers are gated behind that undead requirement that it’s become frustrating (for me as the player). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sweet Tooth said:

I would tweak the Marshal’s Hunt the Dead trigger to remove the undead requirement. I know it’s flavorful but so many of the crew’s triggers are gated behind that undead requirement that it’s become frustrating (for me as the player). 

Or at the least, do what Judge does with Crumble Way. Part of the abilty/trigger applies always, but the full effect only applies against the named enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2019 at 9:12 PM, Sweet Tooth said:

I would tweak the Marshal’s Hunt the Dead trigger to remove the undead requirement. I know it’s flavorful but so many of the crew’s triggers are gated behind that undead requirement that it’s become frustrating (for me as the player). 

I personally think that trigger is OK the way it is, since you can make models count as Undead. However, an interesting change would be that undead models gain Adversary (like it is now) and other models count as being Undead until the end of the turn. That way it would only be fully effective against undead, but at least do something against other models, like Morgan Vening suggested.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play guild, but I do play a lot against a very good guild opponent.
I've been thinking about that balance issues and I want to ask here to you, guild players.

Expert Marksman and No prisonner are both shooting items, and even if guild got a lot of shooters, I've never seen both items taken at the same time. I think they are just too close.

What if there was an item for the shooting (with a combination of the abilities) and an item dedicated to movement. Would it be enough to help guild balance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I was lurking in some of the other faction forums and it got me thinking about secondary masters again. Specifically the fact that Lady Justice is the only master that costs 16 ss because she was "too good" and there was a fear that she would be taken "too often" as a secondary master. I want to put forward the idea of bringing her back down to 15 ss if there is an errata. Now, I know I'm complaining about what may seem like a small difference, but I really feel that there is no reason for her to be more expensive than any other master. Control masters and summoners are what I see talked about most often as secondary masters. Other beater masters (i.e. Nekima) that have similar damage output and mobility haven't seen an increase in ss cost. On top of this, it is discouraging dual master play for a very specific portion of Malifaux players (those that play Guild) when Wyrd claims to be fine with dual masters and wants to keep them in the game (I actually dislike the inclusion of dual masters, but if we are going to do it we should at least be fair about it). It just seems silly and really unjustified to have Lady Justice be the most expensive master in the game. Alternatively, we can give her stat 7 on her attack and then the game will crumble and she'll be the most powerful master thus justifying her 16 ss cost. ;)

Okay, rant over. We can go back to talking about models that really do need buffs! 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alerteddonkey42 said:

Specifically the fact that Lady Justice is the only master that costs 16 ss because she was "too good" and there was a fear that she would be taken "too often" as a secondary master. I want to put forward the idea of bringing her back down to 15 ss if there is an errata.

This has been my beef the whole time. Doesn't seem like there's a tangible reason to have her at 16 ss any longer. With how few metas are allowing dual master, it's not even an issue, and if it is allowed Guild has better masters to take as a secondary master IMO. I'm much more likely to bring J as the primary and tech in Perdita, Sonnia + EM, Dashel, or Nellie.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 3:41 AM, Yore Huckleberry said:

Serious suggestion:

A rules FAQ declaring that a model that is forced to take the interact action must choose to drop a scheme marker or resolve a special interact if possible if there are zero scheme markers in base contact.

I would make it more general: In order to take an Action there must be the potential to change the game state.  

So, in the case of forced Interact Actions, the opponent wouldn't be able to Interact to remove all Scheme Markers and not remove any because nothing about the state would change.  I can't think of anything else at the moment where it would necessarily apply but it would close up a potential loophole for future Actions depending on what Wyrd come up with.  If its just Interacts that are errata'ed, then those future Actions may fall foul of the same kind of loophole but not specifically be disallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 6:42 PM, 11Anthonyc said:

If I recall, wasn't there a heated debate during open beta about Lady J needing either a 7 to her attack or Onslaught? "She's too powerful with both, she only needs one" kind of deal? And now we're stuck with a 6 to hit AND the Jim Belushi of tiggered attacks, "Quick Reflexes".

This was already a fight in Closed Beta. She started at 7, went to 6,,, and that's how the fight started. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, theamazingmrg said:

I would make it more general: In order to take an Action there must be the potential to change the game state.  

So, in the case of forced Interact Actions, the opponent wouldn't be able to Interact to remove all Scheme Markers and not remove any because nothing about the state would change.  I can't think of anything else at the moment where it would necessarily apply but it would close up a potential loophole for future Actions depending on what Wyrd come up with.  If its just Interacts that are errata'ed, then those future Actions may fall foul of the same kind of loophole but not specifically be disallowed.

I think it needs to be narrower: using up an AP or resolving the forced interact from the attack is a change to the game state, so in the first place, it doesn’t solve the issue.
 

But even if you wanted to contend against that, if Nellie forced the interact with her 8”-range One More Question attack, then even taking a “pick up zero marker” interact will set off Nellie’s Breaking News 8” bubble, causing her to gain focus and draw a card, which is a change to the game state. It may well also trigger the Chasing a Story 8” bubble of other reporters too.

If Nellie is actually intended to be able to force enemies to drop enemy scheme markers at range as part of the synergy with her crew’s Slander triggers or tax-in synergy with Guard models, then the rules change needs to be something closer to adding Scheme marker in base contact as a cost, or something.

Edit: that said, I’m all for future-proofing, and I’m curious if you have any other current examples in mind?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 10:29 PM, Bort said:

This was already a fight in Closed Beta. She started at 7, went to 6,,, and that's how the fight started. :) 

And if she'd have stayed at seven she could have finished it too.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of what happened is that at the time that it was being argued that she didn't need to be 7 a bunch of other things were true that made her a better pick.  

1. Distracted applied to more flips and cancelled out focus.

2. Injured applied to all your flips, not just defensive ones.

3. Ljs pulse to remove conditions was like 8" (like last edition and still was barely used).  

If all those things had remained true her decay ability would be better, her ability to ignore distracted would be more important, and her pulse would go from a niche ability to a really useful one. (though often still a tough sell compared to a sword swing).  Distracted and injured were looking like edition defining conditions, which is clearly now not the case.

At the same time, judge got nerfed from best hench in guild to a corner take reliant on healing, and they upped lj and only ljs points by one, because other factions apparently weren't testing as second masters.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 4thstringer said:

they upped lj and only ljs points by one, because other factions apparently weren't testing as second masters.

While I agree with not really a problem with LJ going up to stat 7, in Outcast we had the problem of Von Schill being an auto-take add secondary master because his crew had no sinergy at all, and he could then give upgrades to any model. 

Wyrd decided that, instead looking for some form of synergy with his own crew, it was better to nerf his capability to provide upgrades even when he is the leader. 

So no, guild was not the only faction testing second masters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information