Versatile Discrepancies and How to Fix It?

[Drowsheep]

Hey all!

 

I’ve been going through the forums, and a recurring issue people are griping about is the number of versatile models in TT—I personally don’t play a lot of versatile models and still do well; but there’s no doubt that TT has a lot of good versatile options!

I went through the factions and tallied up the number of versatile figures in each; obviously ignoring the riders, emmissaries, effigies, and band members.  Below is my list.

Arcanist: h: 1, e: 0, m: 5. Rider, band, emm/eff

Bayou: h: 1 e: 4, m: 3, rider, band, emm/eff

Guild: h: 1 e: 3 m:1, rider, band, emm/eff

Neverborn: h: 2 e: 4 m: 2. Rider, band, emm/eff

Outcast: h: 1 e: 4 m:1. Rider, band, emm/eff

Resser: h: 2 e: 1 m: 3. Rider, band, emm/eff

TT: h: 2 e: 3 m: 5.  “Rider”*, band, emm/eff

*TT doesn’t have an actual rider,  it we love our Yasunori, alright....

 

So all factions have 1-2 vers henchman

enforcers: range from 0 to 4

Minions: range from 1-5

 

TT is definitely on the high end here.

Arcanists are high in minions,  but low in the other two.

Bayou, other than only having 1 hench, have higher end for both of the others.

Guild have high enforcers,  it are low in the other two.

Neverborn are high end hench and enforcer, but lowish in minions.

Outcasts are low in all but enforcers

Ressers are good in everything other than enforcers

 

So how to balance it out?  
We have three options really;

1) This is my preferred choice—but is obviously something beyond any of our powers; release new models for each faction to get them closer to the upper tiers (minions in particular, enforcers meh, and why not get everyone a 2nd henchman?
Minions are the most important in my mind since they are the most versatile models (usually the cheapest and most job specific of models).

We can tally up further what types of models each faction has, and what specific roles those versatile models fill—and then figure out what each faction needs.

I’m not saying that every faction needs to have five minion options; but 3-5 should be standard, maybe even 4-5.  If a faction has 4 enforcers, they can probably get by with only 3 minion choices in their versatile pool.  Similarly, having 2 henchmen means they probably don’t need as many enforcers as some of the other factions.
 

2) I’m not as much a fan of this, but it still could be fun.  Make some of the versatile options across the factions lose versatile in place of a keyword.

We can even target masters that have smaller keywords to round out their playable pool.  I’m not a fan of this for several reasons: the thematic feel is lost a little bit here by just shoehorning models into a keyword; the narrowing of a playing field as opposed to the broadening of one is always less inviting.  I would rather have three new enemy models each game to face than lose three of my own.

 

3) I like this option more than the second one, but less than the first.  Open some of the specific keyword models to get versatile too.  An example might be guild guards (obviously any master in the guild should be able to call on the guards to support them).

However, this becomes difficult territory as a lot of models rely heavily on their keyword abilities or other models of a keyword. So they would become less efficient (and probably never taken) as a versatile model.

 

Now. As for Henchmen, I’m kind of okay with it being uneven, only because it’s all 1-2; and each master has at least one henchman.  I’d love to get a second versatile henchman for each faction,  but I can’t confirm that it’s necessary.

Enforcers now are also a tricky area; where once they fit a role in between minions and henchmen on the power level, a lot of peon models got made enforcers, and a lot of enforcers got made minions in the transition from 2e to 3e.  In other words, what it means to be an enforcer is a little bit more nebulous.  I’d love to level the playing field in this category too; but it’s the most difficult as these models are the most varied and unique across the factions.  As I kind of mentioned earlier; we don’t the exact same number of versatile models of each category,  but enforcers are a good balance spot to counteract having few minions/henchmen compared to the other factions.

So; how do people feel?  Is this actually an issue for people, or are we just complaining about something cause that’s what humans do?

I know in my local meta there isn’t a no issue with any faction being bonker broken compared to any other.  There are definitely better keywords than others, and definitely better models compared to others.

But is the number of versatiles itself part of the issue that people are feeling?  Obviously, on the competitive level—having more options is always going to be better than not.

Anyway. That’s what I got.
 

[bedjy]

To avoid having teams full of versatile, an option could be to have only the first versatile model paid without tax. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

You can't just break it down to numbers of versatiles.

Mindless zombies are versatile, but that is very different from having access to miners and spiders in Arcanists.

I reckon the power level matters far more, and is much more difficult to gauge.

One thing that would help (which Wyrd has and we don't) is data on how many versatile models are taken in a faction for an average crew. If TT use way more versatiles (which I suspect is true), then that is a red flag.

[Ogid]

There are more factors than number of model. The power level of the versatiles is important; without the +1SS tax any model slightly better than it's cost has a high chance to start appearing in a lot of crews; for this to happen to a keyword model, that model would need to be undercosted by more than 1 full SS.

The second factor is how synergistic the keywords are, a Master like Shenlong or Misaki need little support from its keyword (with 1 or 2 models it's more than enough to enable the master), in those cases if the versatile pool is strong, they will start popping out more.

Restricting too much the versatiles with the +1SS tax may backfire tho, those are needed when the master face someone that counter his mechanics.

About what to do If there is a real problem (I don't know if there is tho). Either slightly nerf the overperforming versatiles to put them in line or buff the keyword models/make the keyword synergies stronger.

[Adran]

There are a few problems with your premise.

Firstly, not all factions have a rider. Even if you count Yasinori, Bayou and Outcasts don't have a rider.

Secondly, you are looking at just the Versitile choices. That doesn't actually tell you how many choices a Keyword has, which is probably a more relevant number.

I can tell you of some historical instances of models that were at one point versatile and then during beta testing dropped a ss, but gained a keyword. If you just consider the number of Versitile models in a faction, then they suddenly disappeared, but for 7 of the 8 masters in that faction there was actually no change to the options they had, or the cost of those options.

I will admit that lots of people don't look outside keyword and Versitile for their crews, so they might not now notice those models, but they are still ja valid crew hire.

 

And Ten thunder model distribution has been a bit of a funny thing due to the way that the faction was introduced in first edition, and then continued in second edition. There was a larger amount of Generic (Not master specific) model profiles made to make sure the faction was well rounded out at release, and then again in M2, when most TT masters had access to a pool of models that weren't TT, they had a smaller faction as a whole, but a larger amount of those "Generic" followers.

 

 

 

 

 

[Drowsheep]

16 hours ago, bedjy said:

To avoid having teams full of versatile, an option could be to have only the first versatile model paid without tax. 

That kind of defeats the purpose of being versatile if you’re still paying a tax; at that point just run models from other keywords.

 

14 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

You can't just break it down to numbers of versatiles.

Mindless zombies are versatile, but that is very different from having access to miners and spiders in Arcanists.

I reckon the power level matters far more, and is much more difficult to gauge.

Yeah; I mentioned potentially comparing the various versatile models and seeing what roles they fill; obviously a mindless zombie isn’t comparable to a samurai (for instance),  but they aren’t supposed to be.  That being said, both Ressers and TT should have both an inexpensive meatshield and a high cost beater to pull from.

 

9 hours ago, Ogid said:

 

About what to do If there is a real problem (I don't know if there is tho). Either slightly nerf the overperforming versatiles to put them in line or buff the keyword models/make the keyword synergies stronger.

Generally nerfing stuff doesn’t work; either it’s nerfed in a way that makes it unplayable, or it’s nerfed in a way that doesn’t make it less over-effective.

 

9 hours ago, Adran said:

There are a few problems with your premise.

Firstly, not all factions have a rider. Even if you count Yasinori, Bayou and Outcasts don't have a rider.

Secondly, you are looking at just the Versitile choices. That doesn't actually tell you how many choices a Keyword has, which is probably a more relevant number.

I can tell you of some historical instances of models that were at one point versatile and then during beta testing dropped a ss, but gained a keyword. If you just consider the number of Versitile models in a faction, then they suddenly disappeared, but for 7 of the 8 masters in that faction there was actually no change to the options they had, or the cost of those options.

I will admit that lots of people don't look outside keyword and Versitile for their crews, so they might not now notice those models, but they are still ja valid crew hire.

 

And Ten thunder model distribution has been a bit of a funny thing due to the way that the faction was introduced in first edition, and then continued in second edition. There was a larger amount of Generic (Not master specific) model profiles made to make sure the faction was well rounded out at release, and then again in M2, when most TT masters had access to a pool of models that weren't TT, they had a smaller faction as a whole, but a larger amount of those "Generic" followers.

 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree; I think choices across keywords is the larger issue.  However, people have been complaining about competitive lists running versatile options with little to none of the keyword models.

i personally like running keyword crews; and I do well doing it—but people are complaining, so I thought I’d start a discussion.

i think in an ideal world every faction (and every keyword) would have a comparable amount of both keyword and versatile models.  
 

and yeah—thats exactly the issue; TT was released with a less cohesive unity between models—there are far more generic TT than any other faction.  As such, how do we rectify that surplus of versatile models that one faction has.

I think it’s worth going over the various keyword and trying to find those that need additional help—but I also think the potential for a more level playing field can be achieved by adding to the meta.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Drowsheep said:

That being said, both Ressers and TT should have both an inexpensive meatshield and a high cost beater to pull from.

I think this is the key problem. Why should both Ressers and TT have an inexpensive meatshield and a high cost beater to pull from?

Ressers don't have a "Don't Mind Me" to work with. Neverborn doesn't have any leaps (though Zoraida can pick them up). Every faction has unique strengths and weaknesses (heck, even every keyword does). That's a key part of Malifaux in my mind.

[farmoar]

23 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think this is the key problem. Why should both Ressers and TT have an inexpensive meatshield and a high cost beater to pull from?

Ressers don't have a "Don't Mind Me" to work with. Neverborn doesn't have any leaps (though Zoraida can pick them up). Every faction has unique strengths and weaknesses (heck, even every keyword does). That's a key part of Malifaux in my mind.

bolded for emphasis

 

I think the Ten Thunders Versatile complaints come out because of how much better the majority of their Versatile models are, compared to other factions.

[Adran]

I don't agree with the premise, but I'm confused by your solutions.

If the problem is Sometimes ten thunders lists are full of versatile models and your  answer is to put more versatile models in other factions. I don't see how that alters the initial problems you have. 

Ten thunders aren't the only faction that are running lists without keywords, there was certainly talk about the best Seamus list having no redchapel models. 

[farmoar]

11 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't agree with the premise, but I'm confused by your solutions.

If the problem is Sometimes ten thunders lists are full of versatile models and your  answer is to put more versatile models in other factions. I don't see how that alters the initial problems you have. 

Ten thunders aren't the only faction that are running lists without keywords, there was certainly talk about the best Seamus list having no redchapel models. 

Which is fair, but there are no reports of players running solo Seamus fixed list and winning large tournaments. Unlike Shenlong...

Ten Thunders just has very overpowered Versatile models, that when combined with a Swiss army knife of a master like Shenlong, can cause a lot of "the sky is falling" topics.

 

[Adran]

47 minutes ago, farmoar said:

Which is fair, but there are no reports of players running solo Seamus fixed list and winning large tournaments. Unlike Shenlong...

 

I think the Seamus list that lost the final of the UKGT to Shen longwas close to fixed list. I think it was Granty 1982 who ran it.

Edit just looked in the resser forum, it was mainly fixed list and had bete but no other keyword. Was running second until the last round.  

If it's any help you posted in the thread that talks about it. 

[farmoar]

Just now, Adran said:

I think the Seamus list that lost the final of the UKGT to Shen longwas close to fixed list. I think it was Grantt who ran it

Get him in here to confirm! lol

in all seriousness, it probably can't hold a candle to the #Core4 Shenlong list

[Drowsheep]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think this is the key problem. Why should both Ressers and TT have an inexpensive meatshield and a high cost beater to pull from?

Ressers don't have a "Don't Mind Me" to work with. Neverborn doesn't have any leaps (though Zoraida can pick them up). Every faction has unique strengths and weaknesses (heck, even every keyword does). That's a key part of Malifaux in my mind.

I mean; I once agreed—however a lot of 3e seems to have been making each faction a bit more homogenous.  There are definitely still differences;  but ultimately each faction is actually pretty similar.

I have long argued that TT’s main strength is the versatility of the faction—and yet that’s what people are complaining about, so... *le shrug*
 

56 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't agree with the premise, but I'm confused by your solutions.

If the problem is Sometimes ten thunders lists are full of versatile models and your  answer is to put more versatile models in other factions. I don't see how that alters the initial problems you have. 

Ten thunders aren't the only faction that are running lists without keywords, there was certainly talk about the best Seamus list having no redchapel models. 

I mean; I tried to offer several solutions.  I’m personally advocating for leveling the playing field by adding more models; because diversifying the game will always be the healthier option than by imposing constraints (whether that’s nerfing models, adding keywords, whatever). 

The issue is, ultimately, people are going to play what is considered the best—so unless you’re prevented from hiring outside of keyword, or whatever puritanical hiring rules are made, people will pay the extra or hire the versatile that they want to play. You make the versatiles worse; but then why have them?  What the point of running a model that’s subpar?  So, if on the competitive level, people are complaining about one faction having good versatiles, then why not just add more models to other factions so that there’s less of a reason to complain?

I also am always hesitant to say that one crew/style is consistently *better*.  All through the days of 2e when the majority of TT was labeled as weak or unplayable, I was regularly doing well by playing against the meta (I know not ALL of TT,  but a good chunk of it was getting a lot of hate across the board). So I understand where people are coming from—but I also don’t think that these crews are unbeatable.

[Mycellanious]

1 hour ago, Drowsheep said:

 

and yeah—thats exactly the issue; TT was released with a less cohesive unity between models—there are far more generic TT than any other faction.  As such, how do we rectify that surplus of versatile models that one faction has.

DMH

[Drowsheep]

4 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

DMH

Sure; that’s an option. Though, at present DMH is reserved for models that are story wise removed from the narrative.

TT is also a weird faction—as has been mentioned—because it was brought into being a bit differently from most of the other factions.

And how do we determine which models get the chopping block and which don’t?

[Mycellanious]

29 minutes ago, Drowsheep said:

Sure; that’s an option. Though, at present DMH is reserved for models that are story wise removed from the narrative.

TT is also a weird faction—as has been mentioned—because it was brought into being a bit differently from most of the other factions.

And how do we determine which models get the chopping block and which don’t?

I dont really believe that's the right answer. I dont even believe there's a versatile problem. It's just an answer no one mentioned yet so I thought I'd bring it up

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 hours ago, Drowsheep said:

The issue is, ultimately, people are going to play what is considered the best—so unless you’re prevented from hiring outside of keyword, or whatever puritanical hiring rules are made, people will pay the extra or hire the versatile that they want to play. You make the versatiles worse; but then why have them?  What the point of running a model that’s subpar?  So, if on the competitive level, people are complaining about one faction having good versatiles, then why not just add more models to other factions so that there’s less of a reason to complain?

While this probably makes sense from a short-term marketing perspective (more products to sell, more to buy), it also means the game will suffer from the classic problem of power creep.

If Ten Thunders has versatiles so powerful that everyone takes them, and you apply that same treatment to other factions... Then most keyword models start to become obsolete. Adding models to the game generally will crowd out at least some other models/crews/factions.

One of the counter-intuitive principles of game design is that constraints are actually useful. If everyone could do everything, the game is not interesting. Limitations make for interesting gameplay decisions, list building decisions, etc.

[Drowsheep]

4 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

While this probably makes sense from a short-term marketing perspective (more products to sell, more to buy), it also means the game will suffer from the classic problem of power creep.

If Ten Thunders has versatiles so powerful that everyone takes them, and you apply that same treatment to other factions... Then most keyword models start to become obsolete. Adding models to the game generally will crowd out at least some other models/crews/factions.

One of the counter-intuitive principles of game design is that constraints are actually useful. If everyone could do everything, the game is not interesting. Limitations make for interesting gameplay decisions, list building decisions, etc.

To be honest with you; I prefer asymmetrical gaming.  But, and I’m not trying to start a fight with anyone, these forums become hotbeds for complaining about what each faction is lacking or what other factions have that’s currently shiny.

So while I personally love games where the crews are doing fundamentally different things to accomplish their objectives, the overwhelming sense I get every time I get on here is that nobody else agrees with that viewpoint—or they agree only so long as their faction is the one on top currently.

 

[santaclaws01]

13 hours ago, farmoar said:

Which is fair, but there are no reports of players running solo Seamus fixed list and winning large tournaments. Unlike Shenlong...

Which only has 2 versatile models IIRC. Yasunori and Minako, so it's not really versatile models being the problem here.

[SerZaka]

Waiting for someone to bring Fuhatsu as a Leader in a tournament . With only Versatile hired . It will be epic 

"What keyword do you declare?"

"None"

[Drowsheep]

10 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Which only has 2 versatile models IIRC. Yasunori and Minako, so it's not really versatile models being the problem here.

The more bonkers part is them running models that are from another keyword.  The versatile (while strong) aren’t usually what’s zany. XD

[SerZaka]

I still don't get why Minako got the Versatile trait in the last weekly beta update tho 😕

She serves Misaki, nobody else 

At first I thought was because she was part of an Encounter like the Crossroads. But she is the only one: Fitzsimmons, the gremlin on a barrel , Manos ; all of them don't have the Versatile thing. Weird

[Drowsheep]

3 hours ago, SerZaka said:

I still don't get why Minako got the Versatile trait in the last weekly beta update tho 😕

She serves Misaki, nobody else 

At first I thought was because she was part of an Encounter like the Crossroads. But she is the only one: Fitzsimmons, the gremlin on a barrel , Manos ; all of them don't have the Versatile thing. Weird

Yeah; if there was one model I’d be fine losing versatile for sure, it would be her.