Hoffman the Inventor

[dancater]

34 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

In ressers, there are currently 2 options (Molly 1 or Yan Lo 2). Should people have to tech these in as second masters every time they face Hoffman? Or declare Molly/Yan Lo every time they face arcanists?

I don't think marker removal is a reasonable answer.

You can argue "just play the game only able to score 2 symbols" or whatever, but I'm not sure either of those solutions are very reasonable.

I partially agree.

However, I will say that the necessity to take mandatory marker removal into the Inventor (of any Hoffman declare because it could be the Inventor) is somewhat reduced depending on the table state. The same issue of what strat/schemes are available and where and what the terrain is (in relation to strat markers especially) being huge for the 'playability' of the Inventor also works in reverse. So where the table, strats and schemes are very unfriendly against the Inventors Pylons (allowing him to lock critical portions of the play area) that's, as we've acknowledged terrible, and would almost demand marker removal tech. But where the table is not dense with difficult, or worse impassable, terrain and the strat/schemes don't necessitate getting to certain key points, well then the Pylons become an irritant, marker removal is nice, but by no means essential.

I dislike that the above calculation is going to be important for the Inventor.

I agree that limiting play to certain symbols is unreasonable.

But it is game damaging, not game breaking. 

I do think it needs a solution, and I think we have solid suggestions here. And as I've said, I suspect (as muraki says) they won't implement them this late (I hope but..), so I do think that we see a significant errata, or GG3 proto-errata, after 12 months has highlighted this problem as needing to be addressed.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, dancater said:

I partially agree.

However, I will say that the necessity to take mandatory marker removal into the Inventor (of any Hoffman declare because it could be the Inventor) is somewhat reduced depending on the table state. The same issue of what strat/schemes are available and where and what the terrain is (in relation to strat markers especially) being huge for the 'playability' of the Inventor also works in reverse. So where the table, strats and schemes are very unfriendly against the Inventors Pylons (allowing him to lock critical portions of the play area) that's, as we've acknowledged terrible, and would almost demand marker removal tech. But where the table is not dense with difficult, or worse impassable, terrain and the strat/schemes don't necessitate getting to certain key points, well then the Pylons become an irritant, marker removal is nice, but by no means essential.

I dislike that the above calculation is going to be important for the Inventor.

I agree that limiting play to certain symbols is unreasonable.

But it is game damaging, not game breaking. 

I do think it needs a solution, and I think we have solid suggestions here. And as I've said, I suspect (as muraki says) they won't implement them this late (I hope but..), so I do think that we see a significant errata, or GG3 proto-errata, after 12 months has highlighted this problem as needing to be addressed.

I agree that it may be too late and I only raise these issue so vehemently because the cards still say 'subject to change.'

But I don't think that this is a bizarre table state thing. As I said, literally any impassable terrain will allow you to perform this trick, and impassable terrain is pretty common (and in fact, 2 of the strategies provide markers that are impassable, and you could just perma-lock a master onto a leyline for example - though at least then he can help score that leyline xD)

If you do get a funkier setup (like a building with corners, which isn't THAT weird), you can do things like I've outlined with symbols, or even lock out a model such that it can't draw LOS to anything and has no chance of being rescued.

[Maniacal_cackle]

And also I raise this primarily in the spirit of:

I am a soul-crushing denial player who LIVES to lock people out of the game. Players like me should not be given tools that are this NPE imo.

[muraki]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, according to the rules you set up terrain before you know what people are playing.

And while I agree that once it is released we should all be gentlemanly to each other, I think it is reasonable to expect that the rules try not to be too abusable.

And vassal terrain isn't relevant for the second example. Literally any piece of impassable terrain will work for the prison setup demonstrated above. You can't set up a table with impassable terrain where this trick cannot be done I believe.

Also, in regards to the 'more marker removal in the game', IMO there should be no tech so strong that you instantly lose if you don't have the tech in your crew for whatever reason (for example, your local LGS sold out of the boxes).

And while this isn't quite an instant lose, it is pretty ridiculous AND npe, and I imagine in testing will result in a lot of games ended on the spot.

Sure. I guess I have difficulty with 'change the mechanic a month before go live, it's easy' mentality as any change really needs to be tested to see if it breaks something else and that can't be done in the time before the book is released (which doesn't count reprint costs / etc that a late change would encompass). 

In theory I'm more excited to play into this than cadmus as for this I just need to bring a anti marker piece (easy in most of my crews) rather than building the whole crew to mitigate a bunch of parasites.

[dancater]

7 minutes ago, muraki said:

But also (and a possibly harsh statement) but I'm not sure the competitive scene is the most important consideration for new cards. As there must be more non-competitive players than competitive.

Agreed. I'm not a tournament player at all, so on that count, meh.

But, one the competitive scene, does heavily feature in the promotion of the game, through podcasting tournament players, through shop visitors seeing in-store events. Bad blood there is only a negative, and in this case unnecessary.

Also it is still a negative in non-competitive games where players aren't gentlemanly. This could be an especial problem where a unreasonable, and knowledgeable, veteran player takes advantage of a newer player at a games night, for victory and giggles. Hopefully not common, but I know it does happen. Souring new players is NOT what we, or Wyrd, want. Let's face facts the complexity of Malifaux as a war game (which is the draw for me) is already a good barrier to entry, why have imbalanced non-competitive mechanics as well. 

[Thatguy]

30 minutes ago, clockworkspide said:

They are only 30mm markers and don't project any other effects directly.  I admit, I'm having trouble imagining them as that big a deal

Two can cut off any gaps under 150mm (their two 30mm bases and not allowing gaps bigger than a 29mm between or in ether side). A 5.5" lane is pretty big to cut off for movement, though it would have to be much smaller for them to stop shooting.

 

15 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

If Hoffman gets to activate with this board state and land a single hit, McMourning is out of the game permanently

I hadn't even thought of that. Anyone close to a couple markers or a marker and impassible terrain is potentially susceptible to this sort of lock down.

Though unless Los is completely blocked Mcmourning could potentially Rancid Transplant/ On your heels our. 

[dancater]

While this is broadening the topic.

Yes, I have heard a lot against Cadmus as a huge negative play experience. I have not faced him at all, I do think it needs more time in the wild to see what it is truly like. Some masters and crews are leaning more negative, Daw and Pandora spring to mind, but not OP. That's part of Malifaux.

My worry here is that the negative play mechanic is pretty obvious and it seems to focus in on the table and terrain to a degree that I dislike. While the table (I'm thinking English Ivan) does play a huge part in the game I don't like this one, it seems rules as intended compared to rules as they play abusive.

And that is as a Hoffman is one of my three masters played person.

 

[dancater]

Just now, dancater said:

I do think it needs more time in the wild to see what it is truly like.

And note, this statement is the exact reason that I suspect we'll see the Inventor as is, or very close, despite this thread. We may (I don't think its likely but we may) be hysterical doomsayers.

And also, I would not be surprised if the next errata does address Cadmus to some degree, again because of the many complaints of negative play since the release.

[Maniacal_cackle]

17 minutes ago, dancater said:

I have not faced him at all, I do think it needs more time in the wild to see what it is truly like.

Well, one issue is that they've made a clear design break (this is the first time they're putting impassable terrain that is not destructible into the game, and I don't think it is an accident that they didn't include any in the game before now).

And while strictly speaking, power level considerations need time in the wild, this has a key consideration that can be answered immediately.

• Is it good gameplay to be able to lock strategy markers (or models) behind impassable terrain?

I think regardless of how balanced the master might end up being, I doubt anyone would have been encouraging this kind of gameplay before this Hoffman was revealed.

But yes, I of course acknowledge the other broad point - we may be too late in the process for a redesign (although I think removing the impassable trait is reasonably trivial unless he was specifically designed and playtested with the idea of perma-locking models and markers and areas of the board... In which case, wtf?)

[Thatguy]

I think they could keep indestructible. If his ability to create more via Bull Rush had something like: ", if there are more than four friendly Plyon markets in play remove one" 

He'd still be able to cut off chunks of the board or lock down markers or models with multiple pylons, but it would be limited to a model or two at a time. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

One thing I should also say is...

This master seems super cool and really fun design other than my one issue with it. So there's reason to be excited as well xD

[Maladroit]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

In ressers, there are currently 2 options (Molly 1 or Yan Lo 2). Should people have to tech these in as second masters every time they face Hoffman? Or declare Molly/Yan Lo every time they face arcanists?

I don't think marker removal is a reasonable answer.

You can argue "just play the game only able to score 2 symbols" or whatever, but I'm not sure either of those solutions are very reasonable.

Tend to agree with many of the sentiments through the whole thread - I suspect your level of concern will depend on how much impassable terrain usually features on your boards. Making them climbable would seem to be the simplest solution to those concerns - though maybe a little restrictive on the modelling front. And in this specific case I'm not a fan of rock/paper/scissors where you are having to tech in a bunch of models - which let's face it is already possibly a problem with Augmented with armor 2 throughout the keyword. So your opponent takes Hoffman and you now need to think do I tech in anti-armour and/or marker removal - how much of your original keyword is left if your master matches up less well? Maybe it is my particular preference, but I'd like the game designed so that it pushes you to themey lists, not a tech-pick heavy one. And if you are on the Hoff player that just gets your intended playstyle nuked by some assertive marker removal, I don't see that as intended either.

 

On the metallurgist, I had hoped the model would give Archoff another option for magical training which as it stood was very limited - but sadly no . . . . .

[Thatguy]

33 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

And if you are on the Hoff player that just gets your intended playstyle nuked by some assertive marker removal, I don't see that as intended either.

Very true. New Zorida for example can remove three Pylons a turn, from outside their explodey range. He'd probably be hard pressed to keep them on the field for more than an activation or two. 

[Rufess]

well, in the worst case, we could always ban a master or two in a tournament, if it turned out really unpleasant and out of the balance, until it get fixed.

Just like multi masters.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Rufess

[eddy]

Maybe adding general rule "you can not put, place, drop impasible marker in way that it block acces to strategy marker"? 

[solkan]

59 minutes ago, eddy said:

Maybe adding general rule "you can not put, place, drop impasible marker in way that it block acces to strategy marker"? 

"I haven't blocked access to that marker.  It'll just take you three turns to go around all of the obstacles."  "It's only blocked for 50mm bases"  "It's not blocked for your flying model."

Or, more substantially, that'll just lead to arguments over what's a legal combination of objects that can block access.  Is it acceptable if the obstacles are a combination of models and impassible markers?  

 

[Deathinabox]

19 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

In ressers, there are currently 2 options (Molly 1 or Yan Lo 2). Should people have to tech these in as second masters every time they face Hoffman? Or declare Molly/Yan Lo every time they face arcanists?

Another consideration is that Hoffman can be declared as a second master and still have full access to pylons. The arcanist player can declare a different master, then pick Hoffman as a second and the Resser will have missed the opportunity to tech in marker removal. Basically, a Resser player would need to bring Molly or Yan Lo in every game against both Arcanists and Guild just in case Hoffman is brought in as otherwise they could just be locked out of the game.

[Maniacal_cackle]

24 minutes ago, Deathinabox said:

Another consideration is that Hoffman can be declared as a second master and still have full access to pylons. The arcanist player can declare a different master, then pick Hoffman as a second and the Resser will have missed the opportunity to tech in marker removal. Basically, a Resser player would need to bring Molly or Yan Lo in every game against both Arcanists and Guild just in case Hoffman is brought in as otherwise they could just be locked out of the game.

Yeah, not quite every game and there are some tech options outside of symbols (locked models can place out of the pillars), but...

Still wild that a model can get permalocked pretty easily, and the only out is a place.

Imagine if that happened to your lodestone carrier and los was blocked so they couldn't pass the token xD

[dancater]

Well.

I've talked this one to death, I've imagined, or had explained, many different bad situations. Certainly feel like there is a rattle in the balance engine of Hoffman the Inventor.

So now I'll wait, see what the final iteration of the Inventor is, see if any additional releases or accompanying rules clarification comes along with him, ultimately see how the community responds to his play and whether these issues are real or illusory.

Still have 6 more Arcanists to be revealed, including my darling Colette.

[Deathinabox]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, not quite every game and there are some tech options outside of symbols (locked models can place out of the pillars), but...

Still wild that a model can get permalocked pretty easily, and the only out is a place.

Imagine if that happened to your lodestone carrier and los was blocked so they couldn't pass the token xD

Yeah, I'd agree that I probably wouldn't be worried about Hoffman in Turf War, but the other three strats he can block off markers entirely.

As for the placing, Ressers have a decent number of models that can self-place or move through terrain, but only two models I could find that can reliably place others (Dead Rider and Kentauri). We have a few with Got Your Back, but that requires the target to be engaged, so that is unlikely to work.

My biggest issue is that you can be surprised by Hoffman, in which case you have to take an expensive model who's sole purpose is to run around the field and free your buddies who can't self-place. Additionally, doing this will have no effect on Hoffman's ability to just make Strat Markers untouchable. Also, as you've said, it's not too much extra work to just pylons in a way to block off LoS entirely or just make it impossible to to get a 50mm base within 2" of the trapped model. Additionally, anyone size 3 or move who can't move through walls in some way is actually stuck if they are locked like this, as the horses can't pull them out, (which actually includes the horses themselves.) The only way to prevent this situation is to preemptively declare one of our two marker removal masters and hope that they are declaring Hoffman, because otherwise you just put 16 points into a model that may not do anything relevant for the crew/Strats/Schemes.

 As a Resser player, Inventor Hoffman scares me. Not in the fun way that English Ivan scares me (this seems really good, how do I play around this) but in a NPE way (What models am I forced to take and protect at all costs in order to be allowed to actually play the game as intended).

After all the work Wyrd just put into making sure that Strats and Schemes were working as intended and couldn't be cheesed through weird technicalities, this seems like a step back.

[Math Mathonwy]

I have to say that I find it kinda difficult to believe that Wyrd didn't realize this interaction. I mean, he has a Place on his attack - this has had to come up with during testing but I kinda think that it came up during design. In other words, I believe that this is intended. So I doubt that they will change it.

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I have to say that I find it kinda difficult to believe that Wyrd didn't realize this interaction. I mean, he has a Place on his attack - this has had to come up with during testing but I kinda think that it came up during design. In other words, I believe that this is intended. So I doubt that they will change it.

From what I've heard, this was picked up at some point, which is why they added 'not within 3" of other markers on deployment, but I'm not sure how much people abused it after that.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Well, if it isn't going to get changed... We might as well embrace it and figure out how to win with it.

Another tool for the toolbox is to consider when you can't lock out markers via right angle corners... But you can lock out entire areas.

Here's an example of a turn 1 deployment. Silent ones can help barricade for long enough for Hoffman to get the area totally locked down with pylons. Cerberus and Myranda can go get some scoring done and can place past pillars.

Not using any other constructs means you don't have to worry about using pylons for power tokens.

I think here we're starting to hit the limit of what is practical.

In an extreme case where your opponent does not have access to places OR marker removal, you can lock them out of a section of the board with a bit of effort (basically 14 stones for the OOK silent ones which can still have an impact on the game from afar, and some master AP depending on how much you need to invest).

In practice I think you'll rarely come across a situation where someone will allow you to pull this off.

BUT it does put that list building pressure on people - if you don't build for the above scenario you could lose at crew selection.

The more likely scenario is where you can force people to funnel into a small area (for instance, replace those ice pillars with tanky models might be more practical).

And of course, on any board the question will be "what area of the board can I lock down with 5 pylon markers?

[Adran]

11 hours ago, Deathinabox said:

Another consideration is that Hoffman can be declared as a second master and still have full access to pylons. The arcanist player can declare a different master, then pick Hoffman as a second and the Resser will have missed the opportunity to tech in marker removal. Basically, a Resser player would need to bring Molly or Yan Lo in every game against both Arcanists and Guild just in case Hoffman is brought in as otherwise they could just be locked out of the game.

For what its worth the last errata changed the timing of announcing a second master to before you pick the rest of your crew, so you know if you're facing Hoffman before you build the rest of the crew, even if he is a second master.

I may be wrong, but I think its quite a bit of set up to try and lock things down permanently. If its happening on a regular basis, then it should be changed, but if you only manage it once every 10 games, and then on the 4th or 5th turn, I don't think that is such a huge problem. ( Although it might require a little more thought on terrain definitions, and making some of those wall ends count as climbable as well.

Locking down an area of the board will require several turns to complete, even in your example, which I can't really grasp the scale, you have managed to create 4 ice pillars and 1 pylon in the middle of the other two markers seemingly near the centre line. (If we added a "and not within 3" of impassable terrain" to both the initial deployment, and the new creation, its suddenly almost impossible to lock anything away. If it is a problem, that's the errata I would suggest. )

[Maniacal_cackle]

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

I may be wrong, but I think its quite a bit of set up to try and lock things down permanently. If its happening on a regular basis, then it should be changed, but if you only manage it once every 10 games, and then on the 4th or 5th turn, I don't think that is such a huge problem. ( Although it might require a little more thought on terrain definitions, and making some of those wall ends count as climbable as well.

Agreed we will have to see how some of this plays out, but I've found several boards where I could lock away two symbols turn 1 pretty easily.

Also the McMourning example showed you can create danger zones that are about 12 inches across where if a model steps into it, hoffman can potentially lock them down.

That said, it isn't always going to go off, so I think if crews can build around it (or if you can just say something like "well, i'll win without my master then") it may work out.

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

Locking down an area of the board will require several turns to complete, even in your example, which I can't really grasp the scale, you have managed to create 4 ice pillars and 1 pylon in the middle of the other two markers seemingly near the centre line. (If we added a "and not within 3" of impassable terrain" to both the initial deployment, and the new creation, its suddenly almost impossible to lock anything away. If it is a problem, that's the errata I would suggest. )

Just to clarify, the example above with the 5 pylons in position and 4 ice pillars is turn 1 (but agree that example is starting to go beyond the realm of what is practical).

Still, I think many (competitive) arcanist players will start some games counting what they can do with 5 pylons (what you can do turn 1), and seeing if the board can be broken with Hoffman.