Good matchup vs. Misaki

[Math Mathonwy]

On 10/5/2020 at 5:14 AM, Rufess said:

Swampfiends is not known for their inner synergy, but on the contrary. Zoraida is one of the most hated master since M2E (cannot speak of M1E without experience) because of her Obey and other control abilities/actions. It only comes worse in the new edition when all actions are now single action.

I don't think she was very hated in 1st edition, though naturally Obey was good back then as well. She had the ability to transform into a raven and relocate vast distances which made her difficult to pin down and often gave her the ability to come up with Scheme VP on the final turn all of a sudden which certainly made her tricky. Also, she was able to hire any model with Wp 4 or less which meant that she had access to some very weird synergies.

[LexLock]

2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I don't think she was very hated in 1st edition, though naturally Obey was good back then as well. She had the ability to transform into a raven and relocate vast distances which made her difficult to pin down and often gave her the ability to come up with Scheme VP on the final turn all of a sudden which certainly made her tricky. Also, she was able to hire any model with Wp 4 or less which meant that she had access to some very weird synergies.

I think she was hated for her ability to put a bunch of almost unresisted (one duel) conditions and damage on models at super high range with the Voodoo Doll. She turned from annoying and clunky to scary and BS when Will 'O the Wisps were released.

This edition she has some 2e Raspy vibes with drawing range through her own models, which I know from experience can be quite frustrating.

[Math Mathonwy]

39 minutes ago, LexLock said:

I think she was hated for her ability to put a bunch of almost unresisted (one duel) conditions and damage on models at super high range with the Voodoo Doll. She turned from annoying and clunky to scary and BS when Will 'O the Wisps were released.

You're thinking M2e, not 1e, I believe. I don't think that Voodoo Doll transferred Conditions back in 1e and Wisps were definitely 2e, right?

[blueskies_overhead]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

Prior to the errata there was some talk about you hiring Yasunori and then selecting your master. I'm sure that was tongue in cheek, but it appeared to be a strong contender for every list regardless of Master or Strategy. Several other models that had a similar cost but were less commonly selected also received a cost increase in that errata (the 4 riders).  

 

Yeah, might be some niche situations where he is still useful. 

[Adran]

15 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

You're thinking M2e, not 1e, I believe. I don't think that Voodoo Doll transferred Conditions back in 1e and Wisps were definitely 2e, right?

I think you're right. First edition Zoraida was probably most hated for the no duel poison 2 on any model every turn thanks to the voodoo doll and almost irresistible obeys all the way across the table. 

Unless you were into the rules in which case she was hated for the bizzare interactions that Hex allowed (It let you remove an ability of any model. Any ability! Imagine playing M3 Misaki, and then finding you can no longer unbury at shadow markers because you have suddenly lost the from shadow ability for the rest of the game)

Hated is probably too strong, she just turned any list up to 11,  but that's largely due to obey, and her abilities to remove an opponents hand and know the top of their deck. That and her ability to build crazy combos due to being able to hire any living model with Wp4 or lower.

Anyway back on topic

On 10/7/2020 at 6:48 PM, FredSpaghett said:

Thank you everyone for all your replies.

While you convinced me that there’s probably nothing wrong with Zoraida as a good matchup vs. Misaki, and that she’s a very strong master too, there’s still something I don’t really like about her for now. I’ve decided to move deeper into the Bayou faction as has gotten me Mah and Zipp. I have heard they are more basic and will try to become good at them before I give Zoraida a try again. 

Some masters just don't click with some people straight away. You may find in tiem you are want to come back to try her, or you may just find you don't like her style. Mah and Zipp probably have clearer play styles for you to start with, and its often a really good idea to learn a second master when you learn the game, becasue each master does tend to warp the game a little bit in their own way, so only knowing 1 master does give a slightly warped view of the game over all. 

Good luck with those two and have fun. 

[Ogid]

On 10/8/2020 at 11:48 AM, Adran said:

Prior to the errata there was some talk about you hiring Yasunori and then selecting your master. I'm sure that was tongue in cheek, but it appeared to be a strong contender for every list regardless of Master or Strategy. Several other models that had a similar cost but were less commonly selected also received a cost increase in that errata (the 4 riders).  

So I'm not all that surprised that there was multiple parts of Yasunori that were altered in the errata. That doesn't mean that the errata wasn't too far. I guess part of this depends on how common you feel a versatile model should be appearing (and how common the designers think is right, and the difference between the two). If you just look at the differences they don't seem all that large, quick reflexes instead of Onslaught, and a lower chance to have free masks. (and the cost increase). 

Generally no one likes it when their models are nerfed, which is not surprising. Yas still does everything it did before, just some of it is slightly worse. It can still get 4 attacks, its just they can't all be against the same target, it can still reduce incoming damage, its just likely to be around 1 point less per attack (probably nearer 1/2 point than 1, because there are many circumstances where it reduces the same amount, and none where it reduced it by more than 1 more than it does now

I think they went too far with him tbh, I've not found a reason to play him in any list since GG1 errata and the only time he was played versus me after the patch he was quite disapointing...

He was too good before but nerfing both his ofense (I disagree with you in this point, Onslaught is miles better than Quick Reflexes), his defenses AND increasing the cost (which make him further squishy for his cost because no Wd or defensive tech was added on top of nerfing his mask generation) was too much. Also if we are talking about GG1 no other rider got a price increase, the pale rider got his bonus tweaked but that's it.

It's no the end of the world tho, there are a lot of other good model to choose; but he was overcorrected imo.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Ogid said:

 

He was too good before but nerfing both his ofense (I disagree with you in this point, Onslaught is miles better than Quick Reflexes), his defenses AND increasing the cost (which make him further squishy for his cost because no Wd or defensive tech was added on top of nerfing his mask generation) was too much. Also if we are talking about GG1 no other rider got a price increase, the pale rider got his bonus tweaked but that's it.

You're right for some reason I thought they upped all the riders to 11 in the errata but they already were 11. It has similar defensive tech as they have. It's both more and less consistent at getting its df trigger. 

I don't disagree that onslaught is better than quick reflexes because you are much more likely to still be in range of the same model than you are a different model, and you are generally much better focusing on killing1 thing than hurting 2. 

Some of this depends on how you want to use it. Hunting scheme runners and its much worse. Fighting in a ruck it's more likely you didn't want 4 attacks on the same thing in the first place so it's probably closer. 

[Jinn]

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

Some of this depends on how you want to use it. Hunting scheme runners and its much worse. Fighting in a ruck it's more likely you didn't want 4 attacks on the same thing in the first place so it's probably closer. 

I think focusing fire on a single model is pretty important in both scenarios (I'd prefer to get three attacks on one thing to kill it than four attacks spread across two and killing neither), which is why the Yasunori kind of sucks at both roles now.

The problem with the Yasunori is that it didn't have the utility that other riders had and it made up for that in offensive capability and costing less (more than made up for it, though it was likely not as overtuned as the pale was). Now after the nerf it is much weaker defensively than the other riders, much weaker offensively than all but the mechanical, lacks Ride with Me, and doesn't have an "Ultimate" ability like the other riders AND it was bumped up to cost the same amount.

It just didn't need so many rushed nerfs all at once. I can't see the reasoning behind dropping its defences, drastically dropping its offensive capability and then increasing its cost by a point all at once.

I'm worried that this is just what the Yasunori is going to be this edition, that they won't be willing to revisit it in future errata. 

 

[Ogid]

45 minutes ago, Adran said:

You're right for some reason I thought they upped all the riders to 11 in the errata but they already were 11

No worries, I thought you were refering to a past patch during beta, it's always interesting to hear about older iteration of models.

45 minutes ago, Adran said:

It has similar defensive tech as they have. It's both more and less consistent at getting its df trigger. 

I don't disagree that onslaught is better than quick reflexes because you are much more likely to still be in range of the same model than you are a different model, and you are generally much better focusing on killing1 thing than hurting 2. 

Some of this depends on how you want to use it. Hunting scheme runners and its much worse. Fighting in a ruck it's more likely you didn't want 4 attacks on the same thing in the first place so it's probably closer. 

Yes, there are some similarities but Riders have some things that really tips the scale; Ruthless (I guess not that important in TT that has a lot of them, but still noticeable), Ride with me is huge and the Revel in X also give them some over the top abilities. Yasunori is quite restricted in that department but he had in his favor being a bit cheaper and better (maybe too much) in a straight fight. Now he has the same price but lack those over the top features that make worth it paying 11SS for a 2 AP model with 9 Wds. His Revel in chaos is good, but it need support (healing) from the crew and make him easier to kill at least during 1 activation, so it's a bit bold after the first turn and require more investment than the other revel abilities.

Losing Onslaught now he is worse on his own which restricts his use and even if the damage output in a big scrap could be the same in general, losing the ability to focus down models really hurts his performance imo; maybe this is a playstyle issue, but I'm usually not interested in hurting some random model near of my target and I value quite high the ability to just obliterate a model; that last point is powerful to both put pressure in the other player (which will play differently if he knows Yasu can just kill any overextended model) and to actually do that versus unactivated models and deny activations while gaining activation control.

He was too good before, but I just don't see a use for this one... but maybe other players that play more TT than me could give some insight for niches where he could be viable now.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, Jinn said:

I'm worried that this is just what the Yasunori is going to be this edition, that they won't be willing to revisit it in future errata. 

I suspect this might be part of the point of the nerf bat. If nerfing a model is expensive (new cards?), then they probably never want to have to do it twice. So if they go a bit overboard with nerfing, then they're still sorted in terms of not having to re-nerf.

Which I hope is not the case. I personally think over-nerfs are terrible for the game.

[Ogid]

13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I suspect this might be part of the point of the nerf bat. If nerfing a model is expensive (new cards?), then they probably never want to have to do it twice. So if they go a bit overboard with nerfing, then they're still sorted in terms of not having to re-nerf.

Which I hope is not the case. I personally think over-nerfs are terrible for the game.

It shouldn't be expensive... It's not like they have promised to replace everyone's cards for free after each errata, modifying a card shouldn't take more than 15 mins (and that's counting proof reading and comparing it with others a few times) and everyone get the update for free in the App; in fact it's the opposite because both Wyrd and others like Wargame Vault make money selling or printing those new cards (which is perfectly fine btw as it keeps the game alive).

There must be a balance tho, no one wants to replace his full set of cards each patch or have to relearn how to play his crews after each few moths for a huge amount of changes, but revisiting a few extra models shouldn't be a problem.

[Adran]

33 minutes ago, Ogid said:

It shouldn't be expensive... It's not like they have promised to replace everyone's cards for free after each errata, modifying a card shouldn't take more than 15 mins (and that's counting proof reading and comparing it with others a few times) and everyone get the update for free in the App; in fact it's the opposite because both Wyrd and others like Wargame Vault make money selling or printing those new cards (which is perfectly fine btw as it keeps the game alive).

There must be a balance tho, no one wants to replace his full set of cards each patch or have to relearn how to play his crews after each few moths for a huge amount of changes, but revisiting a few extra models shouldn't be a problem.

I don't know the costs involved but I don't think wyrd make a profit on selling errata cards. You are also missing the time spent designing the altered card and testing it. And the customer good will lost on them having to buy new things to allow them to carry on playing. I gave up playing guild ball because they had such an excessive errata procedure. I couldn't be bothered to keep relearning the same card which is harder than learning a new card. Even though all the cards were free for me, the effort required from me was too much. 

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

I don't know the costs involved but I don't think wyrd make a profit on selling errata cards.

Neither do I, but I'd be surprised if that costed them something; I'm not saying the profit margin would be huge tho.

2 hours ago, Adran said:

You are also missing the time spent designing the altered card and testing it. And the customer good will lost on them having to buy new things to allow them to carry on playing.

For the experience I have in playtesting, I doubt a specialiced team is hired specifically assess how viable one particular model is. The devs and a few group of playtesters will get together (which will work for free or for a few goodies at best) and all the changes will get tested at once. The changes in the card are just a bit of text changed or some extra ability or action that they should have a template for; so it's close to copy paste.

In the context of an ongoing errata, adding a few extra models to that process cost next to nothing, (but as said above there is a limit, the more models, the less playtesting each one will get)

2 hours ago, Adran said:

I gave up playing guild ball because they had such an excessive errata procedure. I couldn't be bothered to keep relearning the same card which is harder than learning a new card. Even though all the cards were free for me, the effort required from me was too much. 

I agree too many models each errata (or erratas too often) is tiresome; but I've gave up games for compromising balance rather than for making too many changes at once.

But anyway, I guess they know what they are doing and want the best for the game because in general things are working well. I was just disagreeing with the idea that revisiting a few models in the context of an errata would be inviable or too costly. 

[Adran]

 

4 hours ago, Ogid said:

Neither do I, but I'd be surprised if that costed them something; I'm not saying the profit margin would be huge tho.

For the experience I have in playtesting, I doubt a specialiced team is hired specifically assess how viable one particular model is. The devs and a few group of playtesters will get together (which will work for free or for a few goodies at best) and all the changes will get tested at once. The changes in the card are just a bit of text changed or some extra ability or action that they should have a template for; so it's close to copy paste.

In the context of an ongoing errata, adding a few extra models to that process cost next to nothing. I was just disagreeing with the idea that revisiting a few models in the context of an errata would be inviable or too costly. 

I know, I was just disagreeing with your disagreement and explaining why I think you were wrong. Whilst they may get a lot of the physical testing done for free ( getting players to play games for them) there is quite a bit in interpreting the results. And you can say that is what we pay the developers for, but every hour they spend on errata is an hour they aren't spending on new products. 

You have read the forums and know how variable peoples opinions on what is too good and what is bad are. It's not a 5 minute job to decide what needs errata and how much. It might be a simple job to just change the cost, buts it's not a simple job to say if that simple change is too much or not enough. 

Yes, the difference between generating errata to 6 models and 7 models is possibly not huge. ( unless that extra model is the one that ends up causing issues during the errata process, as is going to happen occasionally). 

 

All that said, whilst I don't think wyrd want to errata too much, I don't think they are afraid to do a needed errata just because that model had already been errated. 

[Ogid]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

I know, I was just disagreeing with your disagreement and explaining why I think you were wrong. Whilst they may get a lot of the physical testing done for free ( getting players to play games for them) there is quite a bit in interpreting the results. And you can say that is what we pay the developers for, but every hour they spend on errata is an hour they aren't spending on new products. 

You have read the forums and know how variable peoples opinions on what is too good and what is bad are. It's not a 5 minute job to decide what needs errata and how much. It might be a simple job to just change the cost, buts it's not a simple job to say if that simple change is too much or not enough. 

Yes, the difference between generating errata to 6 models and 7 models is possibly not huge. ( unless that extra model is the one that ends up causing issues during the errata process, as is going to happen occasionally). 

Finding the perfect balance has to be tricky... time spent on erratas and good balance is also improving the game and giving the players the feeling they care for their game, which will make players praise and like more the game. That will attract more players in the long run and that's as good as having new and shiny stuff faster. In fact is probably better because new players can bring even more players and will buy all the stuff, not only the new releases; and old players will get more options with the suddenly new viable models/crews meanwhile.

Also I don't think they decide what to change 5 mins before each errata... that's a job of months looking at data from tournaments, app and all the forum's "noise", but at that point the main candidates should be clear, it's a matter of how many of those models/crews they feel confortable testing or changing at once... Which was my point, craming a few more in there shouldn't be that big of a deal, because at that point those should be already shorted and they should have an idea of the direction they want to go with them after all that research.

I could be wrong, but for me good erratas and balance are better in the long run than faster releases.