The versatile problem

[Math Mathonwy]

I was listening to the Other Coast Podcast and they had an interesting episode about Versatile. Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything they said or the suggested solutions but it did certainly spark some new thoughts.

The basic problem with Versatiles, in their mind, was that they dilute the keywords and are too commonly used. They limit design space in the sense that you cannot have a strong Master supported by a keyword as then you end up with Colette or Seamus where you just pick mostly Versatiles and OOK models to form a "super friends" list of usual suspects.

Also, all keyword models need to be better than any Versatile model for the Master for a given role which is a tall order. Especially for some Factions with superb Versatiles. You need a really really good and synergistic Scheme Runner to compete with Midnight Stalker, after all. The first Errata targeted quite a few Versatiles but there are still extremely potent general models in many Versatile pools that kinda fit every occasion.

Other Coast's vision for Versatiles was that they should be more niche picks for certain situations and should actually come with the same SS tax as OOK models.

Now, I think that there are kinda three different types of Versatiles. One is generic Faction models that should give the option for competent fodder for all (or nearly all) Masters in a Faction - stuff like TT Brothers, Bayou Gremlins, and Steam Arachnids. The second is those cross-faction symmetry models like Riders, Crossroads, Effigies, and Emissaries and such. And the third is models who are kinda orphaned in that they don't seem to fit any single Master theme but are more independent operators.

The first category could be considered kinda like extra models for every keyword. The second is a bit of a quirk of Malifaux design and probably "needs" to be there. But the third category is the one which might need to be addressed, in a way.

Now, naturally everyone understands that a giant change like introducing an OOK tax onto some Versatiles effectively increasing their cost by one is not a realistic solution at this point but I'm interested in the thoughts of the forum - how do you feel about Versatiles? Is there a problem? And if there is, is it with the concept or with the execution?

[eddy]

Imo versatiles are fine as they are. Problem is in keywords that clack synerygy with master like mentioned seamus or colett. I really like warmahine & hordes tier mechanics an it should work well with keywords. They could get buffs like if you spend 40 ss on keyword models you can get free 4ss minion, or free upgrade or all your models stat with focus etc. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

Yeah, personally I don't think the problem is with the Versatile models, myself. If Seamus had better internal synergy I'd bring more Redchapel models. I mean if you were to nerf the Carrion Emissary, for example, you wouldn't encourage Redchapel players to bring more in keyword models, you'd just encourage Resser players not to bring Seamus as a leader. While I think they flubbed some keywords pretty badly, I personally prefer the 3e system, even if it occasionally encourages super friends lists with certain masters, is because you actually see some of those masters on the table. In 2e you'd often have a super friends list that would just interchange the master. So in general you'd see fewer masters in addition to the crews being pretty static as well. While I think they flubbed the Redchapel keyword, I'll take this system where you still see Seamus occasionally on the table, as opposed to most of 2e where you'd see his models, but never him.

They could also instead of tier lists, just follow the example they did with the abilities on some masters. If they wanted to make a keyword model better, without generally increasing its power across the faction, just give them abilities that only work if the leader of the crew shares a keyword with said model. So for Sybelle, for example, if you wanted to make her better, without then causing every Resser master to potentially start including her in their crews, just tie the improvements to having the Redchapel keyword be the leader.

So at base, I don't think looking at Versatiles getting taken frequently leads to the conclusion that the Versatiles must be too good for their cost. You have to examine why each said Versatile or OOK model is getting hired. If the value for stones is too excessive then sure do some tweaks downward. But I don't think, for example, the fact that the Hooded Rider shows up pretty frequently in NB lists means that he's too good. I'd say it generally means the keywords that take him lack something in themselves to fill the role he provides. Fix that and you'd see him less.

 

[SEV]

Some versatile are universal patches for faction weakness (condition removal, healing, ruthless, etc..). This is fine if they act as tech pieces... The problems is when those tech pieces are too efficient and become automatic picks in most list... Looking at you Serena.

I like a progressive tax on versatile/OOK (first model @+0 versatile or +1 for OOK, than each extra non keyword models are @+1).

 

[Raising]

I like that ook tax progresion too. It can become pretty steep fast. you wont get the 3rd model OOK

 

[SEV]

28 minutes ago, Raising said:

I like that ook tax progresion too. It can become pretty steep fast. you wont get the 3rd model OOK

 

Yeah... Maybe it is too steep. I was just suggesting a progression (it could be adjusted) but honestly that would force more in keyword games without removing the possibility to tech to adjust against some matchup.

[touchdown]

I think there's just a handful of versatiles that could just a nerf, I don't think it's systemic problem. I think almost every proposal is too punitive. The factions do exist. You should be able to hire versatiles and ook if you want those models. The riders and emissaries are cool models, people like them, they should be viable if people want to use them.

[Nathan Sells]

57 minutes ago, Raising said:

I like that ook tax progresion too. It can become pretty steep fast. you wont get the 3rd model OOK

 

The other issue you get with the OOK tax progression is it becomes a huge nerf to low cost versatile models, which don't seem to be the main problem. I love bringing Wicked Dolls for scheming in Neverborn, but at 4 Stones for a second and 5 for a third one they quickly loose their value. Which would be a shame because they do make for a good scheme-y tech pick in a lot of crews. 

[Thatguy]

I think 3rd has done a good job of reducing Super Friends lists, compared to 2nd. Which was the goal.

I don't think it's a Versatile problem. There are plenty of models that are good enough to show up as OOK picks.

I think it's more of a general balance issue. There some models that are Keyworded and Versatile but aren't good enough to even show up in keyword. Balance is better than every before, but there are so many interactions perfect balance is going to be almost impossible. I think efforts are better focused on individual models that are too prevalent or underperforming than Versatiles as a group.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Well and to be honest I don't like that progressive OOK tax proposal because it adds just another layer of complexity to an already very complex game. After a year away, coming back and even I was a little overwhelmed by all the rules and interactions. While long time experienced players might be able to just easily absorb another layer of rules complexity, I don't think it really brings enough value overall to the game the to offset the complexity addition.

[extremor]

Mhhh interesting topic. I tend to think versatile models are (too) strong but as a NVB player I also know that without serena I often struggle because her healing and condition removal is essential. 
I like strong synergies in keyword like in sandeep (who I also play) and I get frustrated by keywords lacking a lot like Lucius... 

my wish is that wyrd buffs keywords and makes taking versatiles a niche option against certain opponents. 
then -after that- I would be fine with increased tax and wouldn’t be hit too much for including vasilisa and dolls into Lucius for example. I still don’t understand how wyrd can do Dreamer and Lucius or Marcus and not see the huge difference. Same goes for every faction imho

[Math Mathonwy]

3 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

In 2e you'd often have a super friends list that would just interchange the master. So in general you'd see fewer masters in addition to the crews being pretty static as well. While I think they flubbed the Redchapel keyword, I'll take this system where you still see Seamus occasionally on the table, as opposed to most of 2e where you'd see his models, but never him.

We've been over this before but yeah, my experience differs from yours. I traveled to quite a few tournaments (abroad as well) and saw all sorts of models played - didn't really encounter this "super friends but with interchangeable Masters" phenomenon. I also won my final M2e tournament with a Seamus list that I never lost a game with (I played it quite a few times outside of the tournament as well), though I do recall that you dismissed the list as trash when I made a thread about it.

Not disputing your experiences, naturally, just noting that they weren't universal.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Fair. Different experiences are going to happen, and we just have to see what points of view the developers agree with.

[Plaag]

6 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I was listening to the Other Coast Podcast and they had an interesting episode about Versatile. Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything they said or the suggested solutions but it did certainly spark some new thoughts.

The basic problem with Versatiles, in their mind, was that they dilute the keywords and are too commonly used. They limit design space in the sense that you cannot have a strong Master supported by a keyword as then you end up with Colette or Seamus where you just pick mostly Versatiles and OOK models to form a "super friends" list of usual suspects.

Also, all keyword models need to be better than any Versatile model for the Master for a given role which is a tall order. Especially for some Factions with superb Versatiles. You need a really really good and synergistic Scheme Runner to compete with Midnight Stalker, after all. The first Errata targeted quite a few Versatiles but there are still extremely potent general models in many Versatile pools that kinda fit every occasion.

Other Coast's vision for Versatiles was that they should be more niche picks for certain situations and should actually come with the same SS tax as OOK models.

Now, I think that there are kinda three different types of Versatiles. One is generic Faction models that should give the option for competent fodder for all (or nearly all) Masters in a Faction - stuff like TT Brothers, Bayou Gremlins, and Steam Arachnids. The second is those cross-faction symmetry models like Riders, Crossroads, Effigies, and Emissaries and such. And the third is models who are kinda orphaned in that they don't seem to fit any single Master theme but are more independent operators.

The first category could be considered kinda like extra models for every keyword. The second is a bit of a quirk of Malifaux design and probably "needs" to be there. But the third category is the one which might need to be addressed, in a way.

Now, naturally everyone understands that a giant change like introducing an OOK tax onto some Versatiles effectively increasing their cost by one is not a realistic solution at this point but I'm interested in the thoughts of the forum - how do you feel about Versatiles? Is there a problem? And if there is, is it with the concept or with the execution?

wyrd just made bad keyword design-almost all keywords havent got all for competitive game(we have few of them that have almost all like shen, dreamer, hoff, some others-good healing, good schemerun, good tanky models, good support, good dd), thats why we need to go ook and versatile to play competitive games with masters we like

 

[Mycellanious]

53 minutes ago, Plaag said:

wyrd just made bad keyword design-almost all keywords havent got all for competitive game(we have few of them that have almost all like shen, dreamer, hoff, some others-good healing, good schemerun, good tanky models, good support, good dd), thats why we need to go ook and versatile to play competitive games with masters we like

 

I disagree. Wyrd designed most Keywords very well, the problem is individual models overperforming. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I don't think I can judge versatiles overall, since I don't play all the factions. But here's some thoughts on the ressers ones:

• Grave golem - really neat niche pick to synergise with corpse themes.
• Bone pile - really neat niche pick to synergise with corpse themes.
• Carrion effigy - healer to synergise with undead.
• Sloth - healer/support to synergise with undead
• Mortimer - support to synergise with undead and corpses
• Gravedigger - support to synergise with undead and corpses
• Mindless zombie - generic summon for the undead faction
• asura Roten - ultimate generic summoner, synergises with corpse themes.
• Carrion Emissary - niche for creating terrain, blocking heals, and creating zombies in one package.
• Dead Rider - POWERHOUSE

So out of all of those, Dead Rider is the only 'problem' versatile that potentially everyone wants, and even then I think it's okay because it is flavourful that the four horsemen are powerhouses. Although my original idea for them was to escalate them to versatile masters, that wasn't well received either xD

[trikk]

1 hour ago, Mycellanious said:

I disagree. Wyrd designed most Keywords very well, the problem is individual models overperforming. 

It depends on the keyword honestly

You have keyword that work well in keyword (Kin, Augmented, Tormented for example) and some that are pretty bleh (Guard) or are just underwhelming (Elite)

[Greatfrito]

When I was first starting in (what ended up being extremely late) 2e, I really appreciated the mercenary models you could hire into any keyword.  I picked a lot of them up, in part because I generally liked many of them, but also because it made it so that I could grab a master's core box and be able to play it.  I think that's a pretty useful thing to have available as someone just hopping into the game.

3e's Versatile models aren't quite as flexible, but I still like having them to bulk up options within a faction.  From a casual standpoint, they're not AS important since you can hire on other masters and mix your crews like that to start, if you really need to.  It feels like there's enough synergy in most keywords that I prefer sticking to my keyword in most cases. 

My (very uninformed) perspective is that the "problems" with Versatile models and "super friends" lists are problems of balance with specific keywords or models, and not the concept as a whole.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Greatfrito said:

When I was first starting in (what ended up being extremely late) 2e, I really appreciated the mercenary models you could hire into any keyword.  I picked a lot of them up, in part because I generally liked many of them, but also because it made it so that I could grab a master's core box and be able to play it.  I think that's a pretty useful thing to have available as someone just hopping into the game.

I think this is a super important role, and it is good to note.

Not all models have to be aimed at competitive players. It is fine if some models are aimed at people starting out the game.

[hydranixx]

One issue with trying to punish all OOK / Versatile models is that some Keywords really struggle against other Keywords, so you're making some hard match ups even harder.

If player A declares a Keyword reliant on or rewarded for handing out Distracted, and player B just happens to lock in English Ivan, it's an uphill battle if player A stays completely in keyword. Other examples might include pairing against Hoffman when your Keyword has no anti armour or chip damage tech, or if you declare a Keyword that relies on specific defensive tech that your opponent's Keyword completely ignores.

If a nerf or SS tax comes in that hurts a player taking the Alpinist for the second time ever as much as it hurts a player auto including Fuhatsu, or locking in a Dead Rider for the 10th game in a row, that'd be a shame, so I'd much rather see individual models targeted by nerfs or SS increases, or other models buffed.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yeah, totally agree. I'm not convinced that there even is a versatile problem - can anyone list a faction where the versatiles are consistently a problem? Or is it just a handful?

And even a model like Fuhatsu isn't so much a problem as fills a clear niche - ranged beater. You get that same thing even with OOK, if people need a model, they're going to snag it. If Fuhatsu is trimmed down, maybe Samurai replace him or whatever.

Part of the answer there is to make pools where ranged shooters aren't as good (or Fuhatsu has some clear weaknesses, like removing Laugh Off xD)

[Azahul]

Aye, the Midnight Stalker gets mentioned in the original post is another example, but Outcast Keywords are almost universally lacking in scheme runners. You've mostly just got Mercenary and Oblivion with models even trying to do the same thing as the Stalker (and maybe Infamous, though I haven't played Infamous so no personal experience there). It makes sense to have an excellent Versatile scheme runner in a faction where the majority of Keywords would need to look OOK for a scheme runner to begin with, and those Keywords that do have alternative options actually do seem to have good competition for the Stalker.