Errata 2022- core rules

[Gheist]

Hm from my point of view, as we so far had a 7-8 player meta (so something like a contained ecological niche kind of thing) my 2cents of thinking:

You got to work much harder playing in Keyword only. Especially in specific matchups, to the point where some matchups are barely playable for one side if you stay in Keyword (there is the idea that if you declare a faction you have 8 Crews and can tailor to your opponent and pool, but there were limited amounts of crews in the beginning).

Now enter versatile and OOK: If you do not play much, it's much easier to go into the forum (or ask someone you think knows better) and pick up your factions all-star models and insert them into every Crew. Saves you learning, and due to fine balancing issues indeed makes your crews stronger i guess.

I think the question is what kind of player you are and how much time you honestly have to spare for studying the game. In every Tabletop there is a meta and in every tabletop there are people who go copy paste play with different amounts of success and people who really think hard about alternatives and try to make them work and maybe figure out a way to break the meta to some degree. I think the latter one makes you a better player in the long run, but i guess if you have like 3 hours every week for thinking and playing faux then bringing dual rider lawyer stewart saves you stress and frustration.

Due to my recent expierences in a bigger meta would say: Either there is more frequent finetuning needed, thats what would be best for competitive regular gamers and would include imho stuff like taking away fixed +2 to initiative from some models or:

the Cost for hiring ook is not high enough. I am at a loss to make a suggestion, but paying more stones would only narrow everything down even more than it acutally is, so it has be something to do with the in game efficiency maybe? like having them take a low Willpower and make them get slow if they fail it. To show they are not funtioning as well in another crew?

[DuBlanck]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:23 PM, admiralvorkraft said:

My wish - though I understand this isn't happening - would be an adjustment to the way schemes. I hugely preferred how they worked in 2e, where I could score the full scheme in-game. It opened up so many lines of play that weren't based on attrition and made fragile tricky scheme-y crews (Elite, Performer, looking at you) way more viable. If the EoG point became available at the end of any turn after you scored the reveal point it would hugely improve the game imo. It would require rewriting some of the kill schemes so they didn't become too easy, but that's not a huge lift.

Yessssssssssss.

[RisingPhoenix]

People think that stopping you from bringing OOK models would somehow cause more diversity.  It'd cause less.  People are not going to suddenly bring bad models because of that rules change, what they'll do is find crew lists that let them play with good models.  The faction that currently is the closest to "all stars" is probably Guild, and a brief glance at most of their henchmen and enforcers reveals the great secret why.  They're awful.  The other one that goes there is explorers, because Calypso/Bebe and Intrepid Emissary are completely busted models that go in every list.

So what's the proper solution?  Nerf the busted models, buff the bad models.  The Outcast master I currently go OOK with the most is Parker, because he has exactly two good models in keyword (three if you count the new one we have to proxy).  If you made me play with only Bandit models, I'd never play Parker. 

It's just a bad suggestion.  If your keyword's 9 stone model is worth 9 stones then people will take it.  If it's less effective than an 8 stone model from another keyword, that's the problem.  Why should a 9 stone model ever be less effective than an 8 stone model in a different keyword, unless that 8 stone model solves a very very specific problem (which is called interesting parts of list building)?

[Cats Laughing]

The OOK 'issue' (if it's an issue) is probably best fixed by hitting specific models that are outliers by making their strength more focused on their keyword while making their use out of keyword weaker. An example might be making the Silent One's healing the full 1/2/3 for December models and only a 1 (or 1/1/2) for non-December models. This example is not a specific model I want or need nerfed, it's just an example that is easy to make and show how a model might be nerfed for OOK purposes and untouched for their keyword.

The second step of this kind of fix is to bring up keyword models that fill the same role as the nerf OOK models. This would need to be done with care so that the same issue isn't created and you're not just replacing one OOK all-star with a new one. For instance if the Silent One was nerfed to heal best with December, then other keyword based healers would likely need to see some buffing to make them reasonable takes for their keyword.  I don't know the other keyword healers well, but they could gain buffs to their healing action such as "(italics) this action's range is increased to X" if targeting a keyword model" or "keyword models heal +1" or maybe those models have other issues that need buffing like +1 Mv or +1 wound, etc...

 

Yeah, this is a lot of work and is something that Wyrd might phase in over time if they decide that certain OOK models are out of line.  It's also quite likely that Wyrd will determine that only some of our bugbears are actually worthy of being nerfed and the models we might think need buffs are not worthy of buffing (or otherwise fixed via new releases).

 

[admiralvorkraft]

19 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

People think that stopping you from bringing OOK models would somehow cause more diversity.  It'd cause less.  People are not going to suddenly bring bad models because of that rules change, what they'll do is find crew lists that let them play with good models.  The faction that currently is the closest to "all stars" is probably Guild, and a brief glance at most of their henchmen and enforcers reveals the great secret why.  They're awful.  The other one that goes there is explorers, because Calypso/Bebe and Intrepid Emissary are completely busted models that go in every list.

So what's the proper solution?  Nerf the busted models, buff the bad models.  The Outcast master I currently go OOK with the most is Parker, because he has exactly two good models in keyword (three if you count the new one we have to proxy).  If you made me play with only Bandit models, I'd never play Parker. 

It's just a bad suggestion.  If your keyword's 9 stone model is worth 9 stones then people will take it.  If it's less effective than an 8 stone model from another keyword, that's the problem.  Why should a 9 stone model ever be less effective than an 8 stone model in a different keyword, unless that 8 stone model solves a very very specific problem (which is called interesting parts of list building)?

You've got a point. I think games are really boring when crews are made up of optimal picks because there's minimal room for creative play. Limiting hiring in a new edition - for example - would have to go hand in hand with a principle of keyword design that forced sub-optimal hiring. But again, that's way beyond the remit of an errata, in my opinion.

Errata wishlist; clarity in terrain rules, address the VWS FAQ and either incorporate or explicitly reject their rulings, make sure the timing charts work with the current game-state (all instances of Instead effects work cleanly, etc.), and change the EoG scoring condition of schemes to be After Revealing or some similar change to allow aggressive scoring strategies rather than exclusively attrition based approaches.

[RisingPhoenix]

Absolutely FANTASTIC core rules change that @Azahul suggested in a different thread - replace Severe terrain with Hazardous (Staggered).  Similar to the Incorporeal from "halve damage, round down" to "-1 damage" change it would largely be similar in terms of how it plays on the table, but massively reduces the bookeeping involved.  I personally find measuring through Severe Terrain tedious since I have tools that measure in whole number inch increments - something that works great in Malifaux absolutely everywhere except where Severe Terrain is involved.

There'd need to be some minor cleanup to make it all consistent, but largely this would make Severe Terrain much easier to use on the table, would streamline the rules (by literally removing one) and allow people to use whatever measuring tools they want to define movement.  Right now the only way I can have a move that's a non-whole number inch increment is Severe terrain, which can make me move any fractional bit of an inch it pleases, forcing me to carry a tape measure no matter what (and also quibble over exactly how much of it my model moved through - a terrible discussion). 

[fire5tone]

the only issue is that staggered is a lot more than just the negative to speed, no friendly pushes, and vs move attacks are better, but even then it only effects the walk and charge actions so it still doesnt really do much of the same, you'd have to change staggered and have a game full 'o collateral or make a new condition to touch that

[Morgan Vening]

 

54 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

replace Severe terrain with Hazardous (Staggered)

I like it in theory, I remember a discussion in the Beta about just making it a flat -2", which would be essentially the same thing, for the reasons mentioned.

I believe one of the two main arguments against was it unfairly disproportionately affected slower models. Move 4 got halved, Move 7 was less than a third reduction. Honestly, I didn't think the extra +1.5" gained by horses was a problem, and could be solved by adding a "cavalry" rule that could be put on those cards that added 1 or doubled the penalty when in that kind of terrain.

The other issue raised was how to handle not having enough movement to get in. A Move 5 model is 3.1" away from a forest. How far into the forest can he go?

The issue with using Staggered (as opposed a fixed -2) is that Staggered isn't one effect, it's two. Certain crews are built around the ability to move friendly models. Staggered neuter them.

However, Numbskull for the win, baby!

[Da Git]

25 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

However, Numbskull for the win, baby!

I can also see a dramatic increase in the number of Tormented crews... this should be avoided at all cost!!

[Maniacal_cackle]

The other thing about hazardous staggered is you can charge through a forest with no penalty, and then suddenly the next movement when you're out of the forest you're slowed down?

Or if it is the last movement of your activation, you're just not penalised at all.

[SEV]

What is the problem with the current severe rules (beside the measuring tools one that, personally,  I never experienced)? I find it easy enough to use. 

Hazardous stagger is interesting as a separate feature on terrain (like a deep jungle could be severe, dense, concealing, hazardous stagger)... but it seems to brings more downsides than anything else as a replacement for severe.

[Maniacal_cackle]

22 minutes ago, SEV said:

What is the problem with the current severe rules (beside the measuring tools one that, personally,  I never experienced)? I find it easy enough to use. 

Hazardous stagger is interesting as a separate feature on terrain (like a deep jungle could be severe, dense, concealing, hazardous stagger)... but it seems to brings more downsides than anything else as a replacement for severe.

I mean it can be pretty difficult to get movement correct when severe is involved.

What happens if you are 3 and 5/16 of an inch away from severe terrain, but then decide you want to hit it at an angle?

It's basically impossible to do precise movement with severe terrain, so it depends how much you value precision movement. Personally I'm not fussed and just round some movement off to keep it legal.

[admiralvorkraft]

I'd honestly just like to see a higher percentage of models actually be effected by terrain. I'd like to see A LOT less flying, incorporeal, Unimpeded - especially on combat models - and a lot fewer models ignoring any of cover/concealing/friendly fire let alone all three.

But I'm probably the only one so whatever.

[Vangerdahast]

Just checked in the app. 

There is 40 Flight, 45 Incorporeal, 50 Unimpeded. A toal of 135 models out of 649 models, roughly 19% of the models.

Doesn't seem too much to me. Some Keywords have a lot of these Abilities, other Keywords don't. So some Crews have an advantage concerning terrain and others don't. It adds variety to the game.

In some cases, the nature of the Crew justifies these abilities. For example, Nephilim Keyword has a lot of Flight but quite logical seeing the plastic models.

It would seem odd for this Crew that some models lose Flight despite physical models having wings.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

17 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

 

I like it in theory, I remember a discussion in the Beta about just making it a flat -2", which would be essentially the same thing, for the reasons mentioned.

I believe one of the two main arguments against was it unfairly disproportionately affected slower models. Move 4 got halved, Move 7 was less than a third reduction. Honestly, I didn't think the extra +1.5" gained by horses was a problem, and could be solved by adding a "cavalry" rule that could be put on those cards that added 1 or doubled the penalty when in that kind of terrain.

The other issue raised was how to handle not having enough movement to get in. A Move 5 model is 3.1" away from a forest. How far into the forest can he go?

The issue with using Staggered (as opposed a fixed -2) is that Staggered isn't one effect, it's two. Certain crews are built around the ability to move friendly models. Staggered neuter them.

However, Numbskull for the win, baby!

Do Mv 7 models often lose more than two inches of movement from severe terrain?  It doesn't halve the unit's entire move, after all, just the portion that takes place within the severe terrain.  My experience is people rarely choose to move entirely through severe terrain (which would be better for the math).  It's more "A 40 mm model with Mv 6 moves through a 1/2" wide strip of severe terrain at a 30 degree angle, what's their total movement?"

If you sitting in front of a computer with every tool to do math open to you can't answer that quickly, you have to realize it's not fun at the table. I vastly prefer using a set of measuring sticks to do movement, so every time I see severe terrain I just sigh.  It's horrible. 

If the effective difference between the two is pretty small (except for a few random edge cases), then lets do it. 

P.S.  Staggered only neuters forced movement crews for the portion of the terrain they move through.  If most of the table is severe terrain that's an issue, but if most of the table was severe terrain I wouldn't want to play Malifaux period.  That just sounds horrible.  Forced movement crews almost always have the tools to move around severe terrain anyway - when was the last time you ran into issues with severe terrain while playing one?

[santaclaws01]

22 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Do Mv 7 models often lose more than two inches of movement from severe terrain?

If they're moving through more than 2" of severe terrain yes, which isn't uncommon at all.

24 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

If you sitting in front of a computer with every tool to do math open to you can't answer that quickly, you have to realize it's not fun at the table.

You don't need to, just measure to move normally and double count as long as the base is in terrain. Yeah you can't use a stick, but you also can't really use a stick when you're trying to do anything but move in a straight line so I'm not sure why it's specifically a problem with severe.
 

25 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

If the effective difference between the two is pretty small (except for a few random edge cases), then lets do it. 

The effective difference between the two is very big as has already been somewhat gotten into. To get to a point where it would interact similarly to how severe works would require a near total rewrite of the hazardous rules, staggered as a condition to be changed, and models that are built with current staggered interactions in mind to be changed.

 

28 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

P.S.  Staggered only neuters forced movement crews for the portion of the terrain they move through.  If most of the table is severe terrain that's an issue, but if most of the table was severe terrain I wouldn't want to play Malifaux period.  That just sounds horrible.  Forced movement crews almost always have the tools to move around severe terrain anyway - when was the last time you ran into issues with severe terrain while playing one?

Very often? It's usually quicker to move straight through a patch of severe terrain than go all the way around and out of activation movement helps with that. With your change that just... wouldn't be an option. Also it makes any crew that can make severe terrain significantly more effective at locking down enemy models.

[Morgan Vening]

3 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

If they're moving through more than 2" of severe terrain yes, which isn't uncommon at all.

Yup. Heck, it doesn't even have to be 2" of terrain. If the terrain is more than ~21/11/1 mm wide (depending on base size), or from edge of base to edge of terrain, there's your 2" penalty.

I agree that the current system is clunky, but it doesn't mean a simple solution won't have flaws or require some fairly massive rejiggers.

[RisingPhoenix]

6 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

7 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

 

You don't need to, just measure to move normally and double count as long as the base is in terrain. Yeah you can't use a stick, but you also can't really use a stick when you're trying to do anything but move in a straight line so I'm not sure why it's specifically a problem with severe.

Amazingly I've found that I can use a 2" and 3" stick to move 5" for instance.  I don't find this particularly onorous.  I do find doing unit conversions between mm and inches with fairly complex mathematics to be onorous, unnecessarily so.

 

Quote

To get to a point where it would interact similarly to how severe works would require a near total rewrite of the hazardous rules, staggered as a condition to be changed, and models that are built with current staggered interactions in mind to be changed.

Why?  A quick review of the battle reports forum would reveal what most of us know - that severe terrain is not used very often.  Most people don't even bother declaring it, which is logical given how annoying it is.  Right now the effective use of terrain that "slows you down" is quite rare. 

I don't see how it requires the rewrite of any rules.  Yes, if our goal was to have it operate 100% similarly to how it does now it would, but how it operates right now is awful.  A simple system is automatically better because it doesn't involve fairly advanced mathematics to even determine how far units are capable of moving. 

7 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

 

Quote

Very often? It's usually quicker to move straight through a patch of severe terrain than go all the way around and out of activation movement helps with that. With your change that just... wouldn't be an option. Also it makes any crew that can make severe terrain significantly more effective at locking down enemy models.

Would it?  If largely it's similar, any crew that can create severe terrain remains largely similar.  And honestly those aren't that common.  There's Nexus, which needs a huge nerf anyways (as easily the best crew in all of Malifaux, a tier 0 monster) and Titania (who is just fine and would not harm Malifaux if she was stronger).  And honestly Nexus just turns its severe terrain into more OP 2 unresistable damage, web markers could have no effect and itwould be just as OP of a keyword.  There's not many keywords affected, and the fact they're affected is of little worry.

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I do find doing unit conversions between mm and inches with fairly complex mathematics to be onorous, unnecessarily so.

You don't need to do any conversion. You put your ruler next to the model and start moving them, just double counting distance as long as their base is in severe terrain.
 

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I don't see how it requires the rewrite of any rules.

You said 
 

Quote

If the effective difference between the two is quite small

But the effective difference is not small at all. To get to a point where it would be small would be quite small would require a rewrite. As it is right now if the only change was "Severe is no Hazardous(staggered)", that would have massive changes
 

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Why?  A quick review of the battle reports forum would reveal what most of us know - that severe terrain is not used very often.

Why do you think you're talking for most people, and why do you think the battle reports are in anyway indicative of how a larger population of people play Malifaux?
 

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Would it?  If largely it's similar,

It's not similar. At all.

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

There's Nexus, which needs a huge nerf anyways  and Titania

And Jedza's crew, Rusty, Mysterious Emissary, Mah+crew, Vatagi Huntsman, WW, Bandersnatch, Kurgan, Grootslang. All off the top of my head.
 

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

(who is just fine and would not harm Malifaux if she was stronger)

If Titania was able to just freely give out staggered like this change would allow, she would get a pretty massive boost.

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

And honestly Nexus just turns its severe terrain into more OP 2 unresistable damage,

...what? There's a pretty long and unguarenteed process to get web marker to parasite damage, and that's only web markers that get dropped to set up for the summoning. Plenty more web markers get dropped, and it makes the Archivist even better since it could lock down models.

[Adran]

On 1/29/2022 at 8:43 AM, RisingPhoenix said:

Absolutely FANTASTIC core rules change that @Azahul suggested in a different thread - replace Severe terrain with Hazardous (Staggered).  Similar to the Incorporeal from "halve damage, round down" to "-1 damage" change it would largely be similar in terms of how it plays on the table, but massively reduces the bookeeping involved.  I personally find measuring through Severe Terrain tedious since I have tools that measure in whole number inch increments - something that works great in Malifaux absolutely everywhere except where Severe Terrain is involved.

There'd need to be some minor cleanup to make it all consistent, but largely this would make Severe Terrain much easier to use on the table, would streamline the rules (by literally removing one) and allow people to use whatever measuring tools they want to define movement.  Right now the only way I can have a move that's a non-whole number inch increment is Severe terrain, which can make me move any fractional bit of an inch it pleases, forcing me to carry a tape measure no matter what (and also quibble over exactly how much of it my model moved through - a terrible discussion). 

Firstly, I totally agree that measuring severe terrain with measuring sticks is a pain. Its still a bit of a pain with a tape measure, but less so. It is much harder to plan the move because it does require that extra measuring step. Probably lots of people do avoid moving through severe because they don't want the hassle of the measuring. I don't think that when I look at boards I see that many that don't have any severe terrain, but I may have many games on those boards when no-one moved into that severe terrain. 

You're wrong that severe is the only way to have a move that is a non whole number of inches. You can freely choose to do it every move. And every time you move in a non straight line you either are very lucky that the turning point is on an interger inches away, or you move some fractions of an inch to get to that point you turn, and then have fractions of an inch left. Perhaps your movement is sufficient that the fractions of inches that you estimate isn't enough to matter, or the overshoot to get to an integer movement doesn't stop you getting to where you want most of the time, but there are going to be times when it is a problem.  

But that is partially the problem with measuring sticks. Yes, the error gets doubled when you are using severe terrain, but there are plenty of moves I try and measure on the table that measuring sticks can't do accurately. 

On 1/30/2022 at 3:05 AM, RisingPhoenix said:

  My experience is people rarely choose to move entirely through severe terrain (which would be better for the math).  It's more "A 40 mm model with Mv 6 moves through a 1/2" wide strip of severe terrain at a 30 degree angle, what's their total movement?"

If you sitting in front of a computer with every tool to do math open to you can't answer that quickly, you have to realize it's not fun at the table. I vastly prefer using a set of measuring sticks to do movement, so every time I see severe terrain I just sigh.  It's horrible. 

Nowhere in the game are you actually asked to calculate their total movement, you're just asked to move them. 

I can work out the distance moved through the severe terrain as a calculation, but I don't generally need to, I move up to touching the severe, note that value, I move so that I have left it, note that distance and double it, and then add those 2 numbers together so see how much of my movement allowance I have used. Yes, if you are restricted to 1" measuring, that can cost you almost 3" of your total move due to measuring uncertainly (assuming that to play safe every measurement that is greater than  2" and less than or equal to 3" is considered 3"), but running round the corner of a building into a narrow street can cost you almost 2" for the same reasons. 

(It does also hide the shortest route to travel across that piece of terrain, are you better to walk across it in the quickest possible route or are you better to cut diagonally across. It will change base on base size and width of terrain, so I very much doubt anyone is going to remember which is best in any given circumstance, which can be another source of measuring delay)

How much movement do you need to walk entirely around a square 3" impassable terrain piece? lots of people at a first guess would say 12", but they'd be wrong. Once you'd though about it, you'd ask what size the base is, because that will change the answer, but the right answer for a 30mm base isn't 12" + 120mm (4 *30mm to get around the corners) - that is more movement than is required. Honestly, I can't tell you the answer because, I can't measure it and I can't work it out in any easy way to calculate the minimum distance to get a circle to pass around a right angle without touching it. I would hate to measure it out with sticks though, even if you went for the 12"+120mm route. 

 

What I would say about the really good thing about the "change severe to hazardous staggered" is that you can play that game now with about 80% of the models in the game with absolutely no rules change required. You just define the terrain pieces at the beginning and off you go.

If you use a severe terrain generating crew (like Fae) you might find its annoying to have both handicaps, or Staggered interacting crews (like Tormented or Woe) may have a power increase and so need some changes, and if you use unimpeded models their value might go down but you define terrain before you hire.

I haven't tried it, but I imagine that on the whole you will still find you ignore the hazardous staggered terrain about as much as you ignored the severe terrain during a game. 

[SEV]

Maybe it's because I play to much on vassal and/or with competitive player, but I never saw someone moving around severe when the optimal move is to go through it...

Like who does that? 

@santaclaws01 cover it well enough. It's not that complicated to deal with severe. 

I mean when I began to play Faux, using LoS rules was waaaaay more complicated than measuring severe movements.

 

[Trimasel]

Agree with @SEV. When I run demos, describe sever terrain is a lot easier, then LoS with markers, terrain and models (due to terrain shadow LoS block & model block works differently). I agree measuring is might be difficult (if you need find optimal move), but all mentioned above resolution I prefer less then current state of rules. 

As part of this thread, I would like to ask at least several examples with LoS of markers & terrain shadow. Because currently I don't remember any information about them in core Rulebook or FAQ.

Additionally, if do anything with ORIGINAL rules from my sigh it is in hiring give 1ss discount to each additional the same minion bought that share leader keyword (up to minimal 2 or 3ss). Just to give more reason to take the same minion model more then one copy. I'm rarely want in real tournament games take the same tool twice or third time... 

Also might be fine to do distracted as full opposit of focus (so include - flip to damage as well). For simplicity as well...

[Math Mathonwy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:51 PM, Adran said:

Honestly, I can't tell you the answer because, I can't measure it and I can't work it out in any easy way to calculate the minimum distance to get a circle to pass around a right angle without touching it.

For a right angle corner, the distance would be π/4 times the base size. Not expecting anyone to use that in a real game, mind. If you cut through the corner along the center line of a base (as people usually tend to measure it), you gain something like a tenth of an inch of extra movement with a 30mm base so it's kinda unlikely to have an appreciable effect on the precision of your movement measures. It does get more pronounced the bigger the base, however.

[RisingPhoenix]

So I've circled back to this idea, and I think I came off too harsh in my initial assessment.  I think there's interesting design space with increasing model costs OOK.  Not across the board (I stand by the fact this would just limit choice), but for certain crews.  Leveticus 2 and his hiring restriction inspired me here.    While that's clearly to  avoid worrying if every model released in Outcasts for all of time is broken with any one of the 4 riders, it opens more design space than just that. 

For instance there's been an idea that summoners are partially balanced because their minions are "less good" due to being summons.  Largely though, that's irrelevant - many summoners like Daschel, Ivan, Asami, etc. can grab from a list of powerful versatile and OOK models. 

I think that having "second versions" of masters gives us room to explore crews that have models way above the curve - but gaping holes in their lists they can't repair.  Or really good summoning, at the cost of fielding a crew that's initially just weak.  For instance, imagine if there was a version of Sandeep that could only field Golems - but all Golems got +1 to all stats, and he could attach upgrades to them.  Or a version of Dreamer that could only field Nightmare minions, but could cycle them back onto the field at an amazing rate.  Or if we decided to nerf English Ivan not by smacking down his actual on-card abilities, but by restricting his ability to get the Intrepid Emmissary and other usual suspects, making him play with Dua and Umbra models. 

I don't think it's good for the game to totally restrict it, but I have been convinced it's appropriate to do with certain things.

P.S.  We still need a lot more buffs.  It might take time, but Wyrd is also operating on a 'we can't go back and adjust things we adjusted' when in fact those are things that are the most likely to need adjustment and the things most likely to need revisiting.  Like at this point we can conclusively say that Yasunori was hit too hard by the nerf bat, GG3 could have dialed up his power level without returning him to his former status of "Ten Thunders Rider that doesn't take a few turns to come online".  We should be open to further buffing Molemen if they still aren't seeing play after a year, or partially reverting nerfs that hit specific models too hard.  Those aren't indications of failure, they're indications that good design is an ongoing process not a perfect ideal. 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

P.S.  We still need a lot more buffs.  It might take time, but Wyrd is also operating on a 'we can't go back and adjust things we adjusted' when in fact those are things that are the most likely to need adjustment and the things most likely to need revisiting.  Like at this point we can conclusively say that Yasunori was hit too hard by the nerf bat, GG3 could have dialed up his power level without returning him to his former status of "Ten Thunders Rider that doesn't take a few turns to come online".  We should be open to further buffing Molemen if they still aren't seeing play after a year, or partially reverting nerfs that hit specific models too hard.  Those aren't indications of failure, they're indications that good design is an ongoing process not a perfect ideal. 

Its hard to say for certain that Wyrd work like that (after all wasn't Sommer already errata'd twice this edition?) It may just be that in their working out which models were most in needing changes, Yasanori wasn't in the top 30 (or how ever many actually got them).  I don't know the wyrd criteria, but if I had 2 equally bad models that needed a buff, and I could only do one, I would naturally go for the one that had been that bad the whole edition rather than one that was nerfed to that bad part way through. 

I would hope that as the edition becomes older, there will be less need to nerf models, and therefore there would be a greater number of models that got a buff. I know we've talked about it before, but I am still of the opinion if you have some over performing models, and some under performing models, you will have a greater positive effect on the game as a whole by reducing the over performing models than you will by improving the under performing (Because until the over performing models are brought down, they will just be taken regardless of how many correctly performing models there are). 

 

There is a lot of interesting space that hiring restrictions can allow, I just would be hesitant to use that as a route to nerf models. Taking your Ivan example, if I had an Ivan list that I purchased that was quite full of OOK that the nerf banned, then I may no longer have a legal list to play. That can produce bad feeling, where as an Ivan title that was bought out with those restrictions would be fine, in that it didn't invalidate what I do now. With the current nerfs you could play a similar list to how you did before the nerfs, it just doesn't do it as well.  And to me, able to play a list, it just be bad is better than no longer able to play a list.