Hot take - New book didn't do enough to unstagnate the previous game *

[RisingPhoenix]

8 hours ago, ooshawn said:

I feel like I mostly just see the same masters, and those masters using the same models. Basically the stuff that was mediocre and not used before, is still the same. Then the stuff that was good and got the best toys is now on the scene, but it's still the same old stuff.  I don't feel like builds are different at all. Basically good stuff is still good, and bad stuff is still bad

6 hours ago, ooshawn said:

They just need to take the riot games approach where they put limits on what they wanna see. Something in league has a 54+ percent win rate, automatically triggers a team meeting to assign a small nerf, nothing changes, next patch another nerf. Same with under a certain percent.  I think if you look at stuff in tournaments, the app, what people are saying. you can put together a list of dozens and dozens of models that are just functionally dead at every ss value

This is very likely true for the most part.  The fact is a lot of bad models are just kind of independently bad, and no master change is going to fix them.  It shouldn't.  Bad models need to be fixed by buffing bad models directly. 

The thing I've discovered is that for whatever reason fans of this game are HEAVILY resistant to buffing, especially numerical buffing.  This is nigh-unbelievable for me.  Most people in most communities consider buffing to be an excellent way to bring more things into viability - instead of hammering at the nail that sticks up, evaluate whether the nail that sticks up is at a healthy height, and if it is, establish a good level to bring things to.  If a model has a cool effect but is kind of meh, maybe a better damage track or some extra health or armor or a little more movement would improve it.  Reward diversity.

I think it's a large part because there's a lot of people on these forums like having advantages over other players.  They like knowing what the good models are, and they like noob-stomping.  It gives their ego a big boost to be good at malifaux, and one of the ways to consistently have a population of scrubs to beat is that if it's hard to acquire a good crew.  You see this same phenomena with collectable card games where people enjoy having ultra rare cards that are stronger than everyone else's cards, so they can constantly beat on the scrubs.  If every model is viable, it's easier for new players to field decent crews with only a few boxes, and then all of a sudden their dominance is less assured than it is when they face a Rasputina player fielding 2 December Acolytes because "they came in the core box and I can't afford to buy another box right now".

Mark Rosewater in his design of MTG called this system mastery and talked about how there was a large group of magic players who really got big ego gains out of  acquiring it.  It's a cheap ego boost because it doesn't actually involve fuzzy concepts like "outplaying your opponent" and "on-table strategy", it's a set of hard and fast rules you can learn that are objective and give you measurable gains in your success. 

Online games with lower barriers to entry for switching to the "OP stuff" don't reward that nearly as much (since people will just flip to the OP race/champion/whatever) so there isn't the same perverse incentives.  There you'll usually see system mastery manifest as a hatred of clarity changes and a preference for obscure and arcane systems because they "add depth" (really just make it harder to know what the right thing is)

[Azahul]

6 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

This is very likely true for the most part.  The fact is a lot of bad models are just kind of independently bad, and no master change is going to fix them.  It shouldn't.  Bad models need to be fixed by buffing bad models directly. 

The thing I've discovered is that for whatever reason fans of this game are HEAVILY resistant to buffing, especially numerical buffing.  This is nigh-unbelievable for me.  Most people in most communities consider buffing to be an excellent way to bring more things into viability - instead of hammering at the nail that sticks up, evaluate whether the nail that sticks up is at a healthy height, and if it is, establish a good level to bring things to.  If a model has a cool effect but is kind of meh, maybe a better damage track or some extra health or armor or a little more movement would improve it.  Reward diversity.

I think it's a large part because there's a lot of people on these forums like having advantages over other players.  They like knowing what the good models are, and they like noob-stomping.  It gives their ego a big boost to be good at malifaux, and one of the ways to consistently have a population of scrubs to beat is that if it's hard to acquire a good crew.  You see this same phenomena with collectable card games where people enjoy having ultra rare cards that are stronger than everyone else's cards, so they can constantly beat on the scrubs.  If every model is viable, it's easier for new players to field decent crews with only a few boxes, and then all of a sudden their dominance is less assured than it is when they face a Rasputina player fielding 2 December Acolytes because "they came in the core box and I can't afford to buy another box right now".

Mark Rosewater in his design of MTG called this system mastery and talked about how there was a large group of magic players who really got big ego gains out of  acquiring it.  It's a cheap ego boost because it doesn't actually involve the hard part of learning the game and outplaying the opponent, you just have to learn the scrub stuff. 

Honestly mate, most of the opposition I've seen you face (though I can't claim to have read every conversation you've been in on the subject) has been over what models need buffing, not whether buffing is a good idea generally. It would probably be better to assume other players have developed appreciation for a different set of models to you given the diverse nature of the game rather than assigning malicious attributes to them for their disagreement.

[RisingPhoenix]

9 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Honestly mate, most of the opposition I've seen you face (though I can't claim to have read every conversation you've been in on the subject) has been over what models need buffing, not whether buffing is a good idea generally. It would probably be better to assume other players have developed appreciation for a different set of models to you given the diverse nature of the game rather than assigning malicious attributes to them for their disagreement.

There is of course disagreement over how models are used.  But I would also say that my characterization of a large segment of posters on this forum is accurate.   I have in fact been directly told numerical buffs are literally bad for the game (because they invalidate cards of all the silly reasons) and that it's better for a model to not be viable than to do a bunch of small buffs on its card.   Every conversation on buffs has at least one person say some variant of "it's okay if a model isn't viable" and usually quite a few bandwagons that dance around but end up saying something similar (usually by hypothesizing some instance where the terrible model is useful - while knowing full well they'd never bring it). 

Your need to personally come after me in response is quite telling.

[Azahul]

52 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

There is of course disagreement over how models are used.  But I would also say that my characterization of a large segment of posters on this forum is accurate.   I have in fact been directly told numerical buffs are literally bad for the game (because they invalidate cards of all the silly reasons) and that it's better for a model to not be viable than to do a bunch of small buffs on its card.   Every conversation on buffs has at least one person say some variant of "it's okay if a model isn't viable" and usually quite a few bandwagons that dance around but end up saying something similar (usually by hypothesizing some instance where the terrible model is useful - while knowing full well they'd never bring it). 

Your need to personally come after me in response is quite telling.

Don't worry, my "need" is driven entirely by a desire to see you tone down your rhetoric. I don't like seeing people get banned and locked out of discussions on subjects they're clearly passionate about. Unfortunately attacking the character of other people on the same forum is usually a fast way to end up there.

Anyway, I seem to be making the situation worse, so don't worry I'll stop trying to diffuse things.

[fire5tone]

ok but why's it gotta be malice? there could be a lot of reasons people could be especially cautious with buffs that dont involve just wanting to stomp people but i dont believe ive ever met anyone with the claim that it was just *bad*, just on a model by model basis like with taelor 

"going after you" is a strong way to word what he did though
 

[Regelridderen]

I'd say that it is more likely to see stagnation in your local player meta, rather than in the game itself.

If you're getting bored with the same matchups, you've got two options; expand your meta to include new players with new crews, or expand your own collection to try out new things/crews/factions. There is a third option which involves to re-think the way you set up tables and terrain.

Having the mindset in your meta of only wanting to play the 'optimum' keywords will inevitably leading into you playing 'chess', as you slowly distill your playstyle to exclude all that is sub-optimal.

-

When it comes to Neverborn, I can promise you that neither Pandora nor Lucy is lacking in power, and I rather prefer these masters over your Nekima and Dreamer - although Dreamer does make my top-three.

[GrumpyGrandpa]

A lot of the statements in this thread seems to be based on anecdotal evidence. Not trying to discredit people and their opinions, but think it is worth mentioning.

Could be interesting to set up a poll on stuff like this. 

[trikk]

I would buff some models but then I might lose and my ego will be crushed and my sole identity is based off of winning in a niche tabletop game. 

The ego comment is insanely offensive and based on anecdata.

I agree some models should be buffed by buffs and not indirect buffs but saying "people don't want buffs" better has a large collection of quotes to backup.

[Adran]

18 hours ago, ooshawn said:

I feel like the game still fundamentally feels the same as it did a year ago. Honestly the errata made more of a difference than the book imo. should wyrd be changing models more often with direct app access? If not changing more often, than do more changes?

I don't feel that the addition of titles ought to have fundamentally changed the game. The Errata is much more likely to noticably change lists, as it changes the models you already hire. Adding new models will take longer to have a noticeable effect, because you have to find out how to use the new models and see where you can use them to improve your current list. 

Malifaux burns basically added 2 models to each keyword, a new master and 1 other model. And unless you are trying to create a "cult of the new" game, then this should not invalidate a lot of what you did with the master and 10ish models that were already in your keyword, it should just provide more options. 

I don't know how quick your meta is to adapt, or what form they play in, but certainly at my club most of the players don't use proxies, and so a large part of the book isn't actually available to use just yet.  

16 hours ago, ooshawn said:

Euri2 - broken, so has play. keyword is still boring and wack

Euri1 - nobody plays, exact same as last year.  kaltgeist is talked about only when you bring euri up to shame him.

Marcus1 - weak, nobody plays, crew still the same as last year

marcus2 - shiny and new, slaps , people play him

Dreamer 2+dreamer both good, dreamer1 literally the exact same as last year. shared model just has no purpose in dreamer. amazing in asami

Titania - zero changes, titania2- people tried her and dropped her cus she's boring and nowhere near as strong as titania1

Pandora - nobody plays her , exact same master. pandora 2, only played because she can become almost unkillable, hand out fast +focus for free and gun down people from 10inches .

see what i'm saying? 

Based on your words, and the 5 neverborn masters you talk about here, you have seen 3 masters go from never played to played with the title, 1 master stay the same, and 1 master be playable with both titles, so that's at least a 50% change in Neverborn meta even assuming Zoraida, Lucius and Nekima didn't change (and you have said else where in this thread that that you play only Zoriada 2, and Nekima 2 is better than Nekima 1, so based on your statements alone, 75% of the neverborn keywords have seen change to their play based on the titles). Even if you are playing fixed lists, you've gone from 3 options to play, to 8 options to play.  Yes, you may find that none of the new keyword models make a huge difference to what you do.

 

9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

This is very likely true for the most part.  The fact is a lot of bad models are just kind of independently bad, and no master change is going to fix them.  It shouldn't.  Bad models need to be fixed by buffing bad models directly. 

The thing I've discovered is that for whatever reason fans of this game are HEAVILY resistant to buffing, especially numerical buffing.  This is nigh-unbelievable for me.  Most people in most communities consider buffing to be an excellent way to bring more things into viability - instead of hammering at the nail that sticks up, evaluate whether the nail that sticks up is at a healthy height, and if it is, establish a good level to bring things to.  If a model has a cool effect but is kind of meh, maybe a better damage track or some extra health or armor or a little more movement would improve it.  Reward diversity.

My personal view is that we should have as few errata as we can get away with.  I have given up on games because they did too many errata (guildball). Other people obviously have different views. 

From an overall community playing effect, nails that stick up are much more trouble than nails that are too deep, because its my choice to use or not use the too deep nails, its my opponents choice to use the sticking up nails. And so I am likely to face the sticking up nail more than the too deep nail. It isn't helped by the number of choices in the game. If a model is too bad to play, then it just doesn't get picked. You can probably still play its keyword perfectly well with the other options, so its bad just affects the owners of that model. 

The approach I would wish Wyrd took was to choose the power level that was right for the greatest number of models that currently exist, and then alter the others to get them to that power level. This would result in the smallest number of errata, and for me that means the smallest number of new profiles I need to learn.  The down side to the approach is that it probably means that there are a lot of models that are above the level, and this would mean that they needed to be nerfed, and players typically don't like their models being nerfed. It generates bad will from the customer and discourages them to buy more product. But that's not my problem to worry about... Doing it this way you probably need to bring models down more importantly than you need to bring models up, because if of the approx 800 models in the game there were 750 at the right level and 50 above the level, you would seen the 50 from above the level all the time with just the occasional few from the 750, whilst if the 750 at the level and 50 below the level, you may never see the 50 weak models, but you would see a wide range from the 750 that were the right power level. 

I think the wyrds approach is somewhere between your view and my view, which is probably for the best, as we are probably near the two extremes, and so the majority is between what you want and what I want. But if we were to run a poll of which 5 models to buff in a faction, I very much doubt you could get agreement for more than 3. This isn't to say that there aren't models that need buffs, but that people see very different needs based on what and how they play. 

 

9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

 

I think it's a large part because there's a lot of people on these forums like having advantages over other players.  They like knowing what the good models are, and they like noob-stomping.  It gives their ego a big boost to be good at malifaux, and one of the ways to consistently have a population of scrubs to beat is that if it's hard to acquire a good crew.  You see this same phenomena with collectable card games where people enjoy having ultra rare cards that are stronger than everyone else's cards, so they can constantly beat on the scrubs.  If every model is viable, it's easier for new players to field decent crews with only a few boxes, and then all of a sudden their dominance is less assured than it is when they face a Rasputina player fielding 2 December Acolytes because "they came in the core box and I can't afford to buy another box right now".

Mark Rosewater in his design of MTG called this system mastery and talked about how there was a large group of magic players who really got big ego gains out of  acquiring it.  It's a cheap ego boost because it doesn't actually involve fuzzy concepts like "outplaying your opponent" and "on-table strategy", it's a set of hard and fast rules you can learn that are objective and give you measurable gains in your success. 

Online games with lower barriers to entry for switching to the "OP stuff" don't reward that nearly as much (since people will just flip to the OP race/champion/whatever) so there isn't the same perverse incentives.  There you'll usually see system mastery manifest as a hatred of clarity changes and a preference for obscure and arcane systems because they "add depth" (really just make it harder to know what the right thing is)

I'm not sure your system mastery argument really works the way you try and explain it. If every model is viable in some circumstances, then the way to do best is to have all models and know when to use the right model. Then I can beat scrubs that don't own all the options. If the way to do best is to own box A, B and C, and they are sitting on the shelf right there in the shop, then new players can go and acquire the net list best models relatively easily and suddenly be competitive. Malifaux doesn't have the "ultra rare" distribution built into it as a balance in the way magic does, although I suppose it is more likely that the "power" boxes are out of stock if they are in more demand. This might also be that for the majority of the players I know, they can afford to buy more than just the core box, and probably do have enough gaming funds that they could switch to the best list, if that was the only way to win, within a month or two. If your gaming group does have a lot more players that have a lower gaming budget, then your description of the issues would be true for you. (There is also things like the sunken time cost of painting models for some players to overcome, so its not quite as simple as I make out). 

Personally, I want to beat you because I am the better player, not because I own a model you don't, or I happen to know an obscure ruling you weren't aware of. That's not to say that the other two reasons there won't factor into the game at times, as will luck, but in general I want the game to be won by the person that planed for the game best and executed the plan the best.  I think you can build a competitive Malifaux collection with only owning 100- 150 ss of models. (Although to actually only own that low a ss collection probably does mean buying singles from places, as it is rare that that 100 ss of models will be the maximum rarity of all models and contain everything from the boxes).  Having a larger collection than that will provide some bonuses, but they diminish the more you own.  And I get a lot more fun out of a close game than a 1 sided game, so I do actually enjoy trying to improve other peoples game play so that I have more fun in the long run. I assume most people post here because they want to improve the hobby for themselves and others. 

 

9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

There is of course disagreement over how models are used.  But I would also say that my characterization of a large segment of posters on this forum is accurate.   I have in fact been directly told numerical buffs are literally bad for the game (because they invalidate cards of all the silly reasons) and that it's better for a model to not be viable than to do a bunch of small buffs on its card.   Every conversation on buffs has at least one person say some variant of "it's okay if a model isn't viable" and usually quite a few bandwagons that dance around but end up saying something similar (usually by hypothesizing some instance where the terrible model is useful - while knowing full well they'd never bring it). 

I feel that this is probably based on a lot of the instances of discussions which did include me (as stated above, I'm of the opinion that too many errata are bad for the game).  The only thing I have to say in my defence, is that if you look at my battle reports I've published on the forum, I do at least play the way I suggest people play. There is very little in the way of M3 battle reports from me, but if you look at my M2 tournament reports (which was more prone to super friends lists I think) that is probably between 50-100 games, I clearly do make use of a wide range of models. You would be hard pushed to find any duplicate lists in that set of games, and you would find I did play with a lot of models that the forums thought were bad in events, and won games whilst using them (the same applies to M1 reports I'm put on the forums). That doesn't automatically mean the models were fine at their power level for some people, but it does at least mean that I was using them on the table not just talking about using them. 

I do have a much higher tolerance of required use for a model than you, if a model is only viable in 10% of the games, and complete rubbish in 90% then I'm probably going to be happy enough with that. Lots of other people would not be happy with that. I think that is in part because I do change my lists so much, that I will use the model when I get to that 10th game, and feel I have played it at the right time and be happy. Plenty of people out there won't have that outlook, either because they don't want to only use a model 10% of the time, or they don't change lists as much as I do, and so won't put it in even in those games where it is viable.  I wouldn't say they are wrong to call for buffs for that model, but I'd also defend my right to say it doesn't need them, based on the way I play and use it.  That's not quite the same as saying "its ok if a model isn't viable", but it is me saying "its ok even if you don't think its viable as long as some people do".  

 

<MOD HAT>

Just as a reminder to all, if you feel the only way to make your point is to say something that may well be considered insulting to a lot of people, it might be safer for the conversation to just not make that point.  If you are just guessing about peoples motivations, its safer to assume they want to improve the game for everyone, even if you don't agree with the way they are trying to do so. It makes conversations much easier to hold if everyone assumes that is the aim everyone has. 

[GrumpyGrandpa]

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

From an overall community playing effect, nails that stick up are much more trouble than nails that are too deep, because its my choice to use or not use the too deep nails, its my opponents choice to use the sticking up nails. And so I am likely to face the sticking up nail more than the too deep nail. It isn't helped by the number of choices in the game. If a model is too bad to play, then it just doesn't get picked. You can probably still play its keyword perfectly well with the other options, so its bad just affects the owners of that model. 

You really nailed it with this part.

I'll see myself out

[RisingPhoenix]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

I'm not sure your system mastery argument really works the way you try and explain it. If every model is viable in some circumstances, then the way to do best is to have all models and know when to use the right model. Then I can beat scrubs that don't own all the options.

It does.  Owning all the models would give you an advantage that you could field "a perfect model for Scheme X" (assuming one exists), yes, but is it anywhere near the advantage you get from straight up fielding better models than your opponent?  No.  Of course not.  A balanced model that's really good at scheme X must be weak in some other way because the model is balanced.  That means that even though you brought "the perfect model" there's room for outplay.

In an imbalanced system, your better model isn't just "better at scheme X", it's better at everything.  Suppose you bring a Katanaka Sniper, and your opponent brings Rami LaCroix.  You realize despite costing one less, Rami has a stat 6 gun, automatic shielded (making him more survivable) and better triggers on his gun. Sure the Sniper has an ability or two that aren't on Rami's card, but it's hard not to feel you overpaid for something that's distinctly worse.  If the system were more balanced, maybe the Sniper would have an equal gun and just as good triggers, meaning you felt you were paying more for the From the Shadows.  Or it would have some other advantage that fit with the assassin theme, like maybe getting plus flips when targeting models at half health or less. 

This is not to sit here and lobby for the Katanaka Sniper (he's not even the most egregious example) it's to make a point that in a balanced system you can still make bad choices - but you can table play your way out of the hole much easier, because your bad choices are only so bad.  They're simply bad for the strategy and scheme.  You can't bring something like a Hoarcat that's just blatantly not worth their stones, you can only bring a pick that gives you less tools to score points (please don't bring a Hoarcat).  These choices still matter, there's still bad crews - you're just not dug into a pit because you brought December Acolytes and Hoarcats (am I picking on Raspy?  A little. December earns it)

 

Rasputina is also a very good example of using alternate masters a bad way.  Her summon ability straight up buffs her summons - making her summons better than the regular version of the model.  With the exception of Silent Ones, you could happily drop the Armor +1 and Demise (Frozen Heart) on every one of her summonable models and they would get more balanced and worth taking.  Yet Wyrd took this alternate route that leaves Raspi 1 in an awful place.  People are still going to buy her box and play her, making her very much a noob trap master. 

P.S.  If all you can think when you read my very dry and factual description is "that is offensive, I'm so offended" but you can't offer one single explanation to give a different perspective, I'm not worried that I've made any inaccuracies in my statements.  If you want to you can go rail at  good ol' Mark Rosewater over it. 

Quote

 

The next reason “bad” cards exist goes to the heart of what makes a trading card game tick. Trading card games, and Magic in particular, are very much about discovery. When you play Uno, for example, you don’t have to know that “Draw Four” is better than a blue 6. All the cards are shuffled together and you play what you get. But in Magic, you pick and choose which cards you use. That makes the ability to differentiate between cards very important. As you grow as a player, you get better at determining a card’s potential. This ongoing challenge is an important part of what keeps Magic fresh.

The best way to examine this quality is to think back to your own Magic history. Can you remember key times where you finally “got” some concept? When all of a sudden things just clicked and you realized why a card or a series of cards were better or worse than you originally thought? That is part of the thrill of playing Magic and R&D purposefully slopes the cards to allow a constant sense of discovery.

Here’s the problem: Imagine cards' relative "difficulty" as a slope. Any card below your comprehension level on the slope is either obviously playable or obviously “bad,” and the rest require some thought or game play to categorize. But we have to design Magic for all players. That means the more advanced a player you are, the more cards you label as “bad cards.” But the lower-level cards are crucial to allowing the beginning player the same sense of discovery and exploration. You may think that the “lucky charms” (Crystal Rod, Iron Star, Ivory Cup, Throne of Bone, and Wooden Sphere) are bad, but our testing shows that most beginners are drawn to them and only learn over time that they are not as good as they seem (usually because a more advanced player tells them). That is why we keep including them in the basic set.

 

Personally I find this idea that "oh you get better at the game so you discover the cards you loved were actually bad" philosophy is a bit vile and exploitive.  Especially when we're referring to models that cost $15-50 each, instead of pieces of cardboard (which, to be fair, can cost $50 each so maybe that's a bad example).  It's rewarding players gain in skill by making the game less interesting, and removing possibility from it. 

That being said, there's no arguing with Magic's success, and there's no arguing that there's not a crowd of players who love that feeling that they're better because they know bad cards are bad.  Go to any FLGS magic event and tell them that you love a lifegain spell, watch their reactions.  At least half the crowd is gonna get a thrill out of knowing they're "better" than you because they know that card is bad (and at least one is going to explain to you in a really snotty and superior way that "well achtually it's not gaining you any card advantage...)

[trikk]

16 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

In an imbalanced system, your better model isn't just "better at scheme X", it's better at everything.  Suppose you bring a Katanaka Sniper, and your opponent brings Rami LaCroix.  You realize despite costing one less, Rami has a stat 6 gun, automatic shielded (making him more survivable) and better triggers on his gun. Sure the Sniper has an ability or two that aren't on Rami's card, but it's hard not to feel you overpaid for something that's distinctly worse.  If the system were more balanced, maybe the Sniper would have an equal gun and just as good triggers, meaning you felt you were paying more for the From the Shadows.  Or it would have some other advantage that fit with the assassin theme, like maybe getting plus flips when targeting models at half health or less. 

The question to ask here. Is Katanaka worse than all other sniper or is Rami better than all other snipers?

[RisingPhoenix]

19 minutes ago, trikk said:

The question to ask here. Is Katanaka worse than all other sniper or is Rami better than all other snipers?

No!  Bad!  Wrong question! 

The question is that is it worth paying 7 in the context of a Malifaux game for what a sniper brings?  Remember, no crew in the game has the option of bringing either a Katanaka Sniper or Rami LaCroix.  And yet you can probably count the number of Katanaka Snipers you see on one hand despite it being in the most popular keyword in Ten Thunders (going by the Malifaux Cup stats). 

Balance is a holistic question.  If you nerf Remi to be as bad as the Katanaka Sniper, then neither model will be brought.  That's the wrong way to do balance, and destroys diversity in the game by sinking an entire type of model simply because most of that type of model is bad.   The Harrison Bergeron approach to balance.

If a model simply isn't seeing play, then nerfing another model that is seeing play in a completely different faction is not the answer.  Going "what is different between that model that sees play and this one that doesn't" and bringing the model that doesn't see play closer to the one that does is the answer (if they both see play but one is wildly and obviously better than the other, then maybe it's time to go hunting for the good ol' nerf bat).

Another way to look at it is that even though Rami sees play in-keyword, no one seems to be in a rush to pay 7 stones for him OOK.   If he really were worth 8 stones (by virtue of being better than a 7 stone model) you'd expect to see him out of keyword fairly frequently.  You don't, unless someone has a very specific need for a sniper - which comes back to filling a specific role, not 'being generally OP'.    So... maybe he's worth about 6. 

[TimH]

4 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Balance is a holistic question.  If you nerf Remi to be as bad as the Katanaka Sniper, then neither model will be brought.  That's the wrong way to do balance, and destroys diversity in the game by sinking an entire type of model simply because most of that type of model is bad.   The Harrison Bergeron approach to balance.

I mostly agree with this but feel it is also worth mentioning that not every sniper should be brought up to a strength level on par with Remi (relative to cost of course). In 2nd edition I recall thestarter set coming out and both Angel Eyes and the Scion of BB being medicore ranged units, but interesting in that they were a ranged option in a traditionally non ranged faction. Of course back in 2E much of what they could theoretically bring was made irrelevant because you could just hire Friekorps Snipers instead.

So I'd like to see the non Remi snipers improved (and maybe Remi weakened a tiny bit) but not necessarily balanced across the board. Guild should have a strong sniper option as the gun heavy faction while the Neverborn options for the niche should be weaker as it isn't the factions speciality.

[RisingPhoenix]

 

22 minutes ago, TimH said:

I mostly agree with this but feel it is also worth mentioning that not every sniper should be brought up to a strength level on par with Remi (relative to cost of course). In 2nd edition I recall thestarter set coming out and both Angel Eyes and the Scion of BB being medicore ranged units, but interesting in that they were a ranged option in a traditionally non ranged faction. Of course back in 2E much of what they could theoretically bring was made irrelevant because you could just hire Friekorps Snipers instead.

So I'd like to see the non Remi snipers improved (and maybe Remi weakened a tiny bit) but not necessarily balanced across the board. Guild should have a strong sniper option as the gun heavy faction while the Neverborn options for the niche should be weaker as it isn't the factions speciality.

I'd agree - options are interesting simply because they're options, even if they're worse than other factions options - as long as they're good enough to be worth considering.  Back when Archie was indisputably the best 9 stone beater in Malifaux (pre-nerf) other factions didn't stop bringing beaters just because Archie existed.  The Lone Swordsman or Joss might have been worse, but they still were good enough models to see play in the context of malifaux (meanwhile in Rezzers Archie was pulling a Superfriends). 

But Angel Eyes is also a good example of the other problem.  We could nerf every single ranged option in Neverborn and every sniper in Malifaux into the dirt and no one would pay 9 stones for her 2/3/5 gun.  She's objectively awful.  For an option to be a "pricy but interesting alternative" it has to actually offer a viable alternative. 

Snipers are a great example of an entire class of models that could use a balance pass - frankly I think they inherited a bit of the old "high enough and you can see everything" terrain rules of 2E in their balance DNA without Wyrd realizing exactly how much the improved cover rules (and to be clear the new rules a LOT better IMHO) hurt snipers.  Snipers being more viable but not OP would be cool.  Not all snipers should be identical, but all should be viable.  I like that idea of a 75-125% balance range.  Models can be on the weak side (75%) or the strong side (125%) but we shouldn't have something that's got no reason to be put on the table in this game. 

(IMHO from a fiscal perspective, I think Wyrd's sculpts are great, and it's a damn shame if I see a great sculpt and know that if I buy it and paint it it's gonna sit on the shelf.  If I could tell myself that it's at least viable sometimes...)

[fire5tone]

oh hey, you summoned an errata, thanks ooshawn

 

[ooshawn]

The errata was amazing, and you are all welcome. Now if we can only convince them to expand the buffs, so other models like molemen and bultungin get played while there is more than a year left in the edition. 

[Mycellanious]

20 hours ago, ooshawn said:

It's all good if you abandon ship and join the dreamer2 train, but if you are still trying to make molemen work, it's like your still in the same spot as when m3e came out. That's incredibly lazy in my book

This aged poorly remarkably quickly

[ooshawn]

Not really, still holds true. Molemen have been probably one of the worst models in the game since the start of the edition, and didn't get touched till now. definitely didn't need to take this long to change right? what do you say mycelium

[RisingPhoenix]

Well, they definitely changed Remi.  Lets see if this makes any of the other snipers in any other faction more viable.

Spoiler: it won't.

I gotta hope they've got a better errata brewing and this is kind of their rough draft.  Seems mostly to nerf some things that badly needed it (English Ivan, Nexus, Archivist, Bebe, Mikael, the 'insta-delete master' combo) and push out some uncontroversial buffs that didn't need much testing. 

[RisingPhoenix]

So plus side and good sign for us, Barbaros in outcasts got changed.  He was a slightly undertuned tarpit/beater who got slight buffs:

• They swapped Df5/Wp6 to Df6/Wp5
• Gave him a little extra movement turn 1 (to get in there faster)
• Made his tarpitting more reliable especially if you have staggered

This doesn't make him an auto-include by any stretch, but now he's just a little more 'on curve' for a 9 stone model. 

Hopefully this is a good sign of tweaks to come. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I don't know how anyone could look at Malifaux and think it does a poor job of making things viable xD

There are dozens of viable masters. In fact almost every master in the game is competitively viable.  Every faction in the game is competitively viable and can win tournaments.

That's a pretty huge achievement.

Even the majority of the models in the game are viable in a competitive scene. In casual play, I'd say at least 95% of models are viable.

So I'd say the errata goes pretty well.

[ooshawn]

I pretty much play 99% of the time on vassal. ain't nobody on vassal playing casual lol

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, ooshawn said:

I pretty much play 99% of the time on vassal. ain't nobody on vassal playing casual lol

Well I hope you can imagine that vassal isn't a priority for the company selling physical assets? XD

Although the vassal players do tend to own large collections and Wyrd should cater to us, it is also the case that we make up a tiny fraction of the game.

I think Vassal has been a great recruitment tool and Wyrd should support it, but I don't think the vassal player playing 200 games in a year is their first priority.

The typical player probably plays 20-50 games in a year. For those players,  it really sucks to have the game change too quickly. Certainly before I was on vassal I was annoyed by the idea of large, sweeping changes invalidating crews.

Though if you're reading this Wyrd, show vassal some love now and then. We do make an effort to keep people engaged with the game, and I know locally some of our physical players started on vassal.

[ooshawn]

the thing is we are the number one go to source on gettings ideas to change stuff , even if we have no idea what we are talking about. I could have mouthed off 20 models that sucked balls month 1 of third edition, molemen etc. had no idea how to fix them or why exactly they are so awful, only that they weren't up to par. To me it makes sense just to rip the band aid off instead of doing all this and that and dragging it out. just fix the stuff that's blatantly awful and the people who aren't connected to the internet in 2022 but can afford to buy expensive plastic toys and rule books, can just play with the old rules.