Alp Bomb, Mark 2

[Necromorph]

This is why I think its not totally off topic to debate the dreamer himself in this discussion. I could take alps with hamelin....but that would be absolutely ineffective, its the dreamers ability to drop them. Copellius is an awesome model, with any NB crew, but when he can be dropped on you head it makes him much more deadly, etc, etc...just random examples.

There are counters to all of these things, though the dreamer is very powerful he is entirely bearable, but the only reason the alp argument is such an issue is their synergy with the dreamer. Not all crews or even factions have that kind of crew destroying synergy, and they shouldn't, but really...should anyone? Outcasts have a wide range of models to deal with the alp bomb, which is awesome, but not all factions have as many options, what are they supposed to do if they don't bring them, if they play models to complement their strat, but not apecifically to counter an alp bomb? They die. You can't simply say play for the strat, because they might not even have a chance to go for it if they get bombed turn 1-2.

There is no easy solution, and I don't think banning or swinging the need bat is the answer but it is a complex issue and it forces opponents to make choices (these choices are made at the start of the game when all you know is that you're up against Nb) that give the dreamer player a tactical advantage. It puts the opponent on the back foot before the game starts. Again, complex issue with no easy solution.

[Fetid Strumpet]

First of all I dispute that first turn kill crews exist as throughly or easily for other Crews. While I will admit the intellectual possibility exists I have not seen it or heard it discussed outside of a few very rare instances, most of which have required their opponent to have moved out of safety first, or exceptional luck that hardly ever happens. Perhaps we should start a new thread on this topic to discuss how all factions have access to a reliable first turn crew kill?

Every crew and faction should NOT have the capacity to do what every other crew and faction can do.

To some extent I agree with you, however they already started the process of homogenization. I'll give an example. The Resser's entire philosophy was based on attrition based wins because they had durable models that they could continue to bring back, or just bring in from scratch. The ability to summon new minions to refresh our forces was a defining characteristic of the Ressers, and other factions should not have had access to it, or if so to a very limited degree. And in the first book this was the case, let's examine the masters who could:

GUILD:

No one.

RESSERS:

This was their faction defining trait.

ARCANISTS:

Ramos, construct building and undead summoning are the same mechanic in the game, although Ramos could more easily gain the materials he needed (granted he could only summon spiders, but then Seamus can only summon Belles). And to this day Scavengers retain the ability to take an all action for a scrap counter, while Graverobbers have lost this ability.

NEVERBORN:

No one. (The grow list is similar, but they can not create better models from previously killed ones)

OUTCASTS:

Leveticus: A resser with a yellow border.

Somer Teeth. Had an ability to bring in new Gremlins.

So the summoning of new minions was pretty much relegated to Ressers it was part of what made them unique.

After Book 2 heres what gained the ability to summon new models outside the Ressers or replace old dead ones.

Colette: Summons Doves. Can summon Mannequins.

Dreamer/Chompy: Summon Daydreams

Collodi: Can summon Marionettes

Alps: Can Summon Alps

Coppelius: Can Summon Alps

Zoraida: Can now Summon Wicked Dolls

Hamelin: Rats.

And after Book 3 these models outside ressers gained the ability to summon.

Spawn Mother: Helps Summon Gups

Widow Weaver: Summons Teddy

So now all factions have gained access to the ability to replenish their forces or summon them from whole cloth.

Now I personally like the Dreamer's fluff, I like the fact that he is in the game, I even like the core ideas behind him. I just feel that they dropped the ball on his execution. And if Cuddling is outside consideration, then the only way to balance it in my opinion is to give everyone the chance to pull the same kind of tricks.

What models are so hyper specialized in those criteria that they can not be used to also achieve your schemes and starategies?

Guild Guards, Canine Remains, Necropunks, Nurses, Steamborg Executioner, Ice Golem, Bad Juju, Hooded Rider, Silurid, Waldgeist, Kill Joy, Lawyer, Guild Autopsy, Night Terror, Nekima, Wicked Dolls, Exorcist, Latigo Pistolero, Crooligan, Drowned, Carrion Effigy, Angelica, Spawn Mother, Gups, etc...

At least you recognize the fact that the Dreamer does have issues. And I'll 100% admit that total balance is never going to happen, but that in no way means that balance shouldn't be sought. Or that if it is discovered that something too strong slipped through it should be changed.

For example Graverobbers lost their ability to take an all action to gain Corpse Counters because of the interaction of Nicodem and Canine Remains. I don't like the fact that they changed a universal rule rather than just fixing one model, but it represents the fact that Wyrd is willing to do what is required for the better experience of their game. From a competitive standpoint, what the Dreamer can do currently is stronger than Nicodem gaining 10+MZ a turn. I do think that Wyrd is doing the right thing to look at the issue very carefully and slowly, (if they don't intend there to be edition after addition) but I do think it needs to be fixed.

Karn, I do respect your opinions on this issue very much, and I'll admit I'm as prone to over-reaction as anyone, I am only human, but can you at least understand my frustration when something so blatantly abusive of what the Dreamer can currently do is constantly defended as 100% fine and that any issues you might have with it are "obviously because you just need to learn to play N00B".

[Necromorph]

I don't think every crew needs a 1st turn alpha strike...it would feel a little too much like Warmahordes then. However, thought true balance is impossible in malifaux, I think that working toward eliminating glaring imbalances is not out of the question. All of the masters should not be equal, but that doesn't mean that some need to be do far above the norm.

[nilus]

Most factions have a cheap swarm approach, except maybe Guild. Being able to move models outside their activation is always a useful ability.

Guild hounds fit that nitch okay. Not as swarmy as Gremlins and such but more then you average Guild list

[jmp_mydog]

I think what this whole conversation is really boiling down to is "auto wounds suck." effects that cause automatic wounds are not fun as it takes the whole interactive part of playing a game and having duels out of it.

The Dreamer with or without an "alp bomb" is beatable, everyone can agree on that you might have to take a specialized crew to do so or whatever, but it's beatable.

The second question that comes up is he fun to play against. If you ask 10 players at random and they answered honestly I'm willing to bet 5 of them will say no. It has nothing to do with the power level of the model, but everything to do with the fact that you're essentially "playing with yourself" waiting for him to pop his crew. The shear lack of interaction is where the problem comes in not really the power level.

Nothing that has such a potentially dramatic effect on the game should be static or essentially "free."

[nilus]

GUILD:

No one

Doesn't really hurt your point but Sonnia had the ability to make more Witchling Stalkers

[nilus]

The second question that comes up is he fun to play against. If you ask 10 players at random and they answered honestly I'm willing to bet 5 of them will say no. It has nothing to do with the power level of the model, but everything to do with the fact that you're essentially "playing with yourself" waiting for him to pop his crew.

So what you are saying is 5 out of 10 Malifaux players find playing with themselves fun.

I actually think that number might need to be a little higher

[Buhallin]

Guild Guards, Canine Remains, Necropunks, Nurses, Steamborg Executioner, Ice Golem, Bad Juju, Hooded Rider, Silurid, Waldgeist, Kill Joy, Lawyer, Guild Autopsy, Night Terror, Nekima, Wicked Dolls, Exorcist, Latigo Pistolero, Crooligan, Drowned, Carrion Effigy, Angelica, Spawn Mother, Gups, etc...

Eh, wha?

Did you misread the question there? Few of these are really specialized at all, and even fewer are specialized against a particular opponent.

Or if you really do think that all those models are so hyper-specialized that they can't be used to accomplish strategies/schemes, then we might as well be done here, because we're obviously not playing the same game.

[karn987]

You made some good points Fetid, but this one I've gotta call you out on.

Guild Guards, Canine Remains, Necropunks, Nurses, Steamborg Executioner, Ice Golem, Bad Juju, Hooded Rider, Silurid, Waldgeist, Kill Joy, Lawyer, Guild Autopsy, Night Terror, Nekima, Wicked Dolls, Exorcist, Latigo Pistolero, Crooligan, Drowned, Carrion Effigy, Angelica, Spawn Mother, Gups, etc...

So think of it this way... none of these models are significant and can cap objectives? None of them have a movement or attack ability? None of them can make interaction actions? Do you see what I'm getting at? Those are all ways they can contribute to your victory on even a basic level.

Every single one of those can contribute to your Strategies and Schemes on a measurable level. Your point doesn't hold water Fetid. You can't honestly believe those models can't help you with your strategies and schemes. Can you explain a few of these? Because in all honesty, I know you know the game better then this.

Here is my question again:

What models are so hyper specialized in those criteria that they can not be used to also achieve your schemes and starategies?

Edited September 28, 2011 by karn987

[Necromorph]

Well, I'm not trying to take sides in the Karn/Fetid argument, but from that list of models, sure, many of them will be able to help you achieve schemes and objectives.

If there were models that didn't help you achieve schemes, strats, w/e, then there would be no point for them to exist in the game. What I would read from that list is that, while those models may be pretty good at helping you cap your objectives, few of them will be particularly useful against the Dreamer (or the alp bomb) in terms of living through the alpha strike / tons of unnavoidable damage an alp bomb can produce to then still have enough left to go and complete your objectives. Unlike some crews/masters, you can't simply ignore the dreamer and go for objectives, he's near impossible to avoid, and with the possible exception of other uber fast crews like Kirai and Collodi, you have to deal with him when the Dreamer wants you to. To put it bluntly, you sit there with your thumb up your a$$ waiting for the paintrain to come into the station. If you force the issue and try for objectives, he will be fast enough to stop you.

A lot of what we argue on these forums gets compounded by either the "just take x" argument, which we can agree is flawed, or the general assumption that a strategy or tactic will work...on paper...in a vacuum, but we often completely forget that the opponent still has control over his own actions, and can actively try to stop you. Just because a tactic might work doesn't mean that it's proof against retribution by the opponent, we can't take such a 1 sided view to it...it's not just about what you do, but what your opponent is going to do when they see what you're doing.

The Dreamer makes you (the opponent) play on his terms, and his control over the flow of the game (and how the opponent is forced to play) in general is a little excessive at times.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Necromorph

[Q'iq'el]

Buhallin's argument seems to be that you should bring these models as a matter of course, anytime you play against Neverborn. Well perhaps, but then you aren't bringing models that are geared towards acomplishing what you are supposed to accomplish.

This is my argument also. You are supposed to adapt your crew for every game. The models that defend you from the bomb are the models geared towards accomplishing your Strategy and Schemes - you always need to bring them.

Think of every game you play in terms of a heist. This is, in a way, a war of weird gangs in an alternative world. Every time you bring a driver and a lookout even if they don't help you to crack the safe directly.

Every time you bring mobility tricks and AoE capability, even if in some games this will be mere extra damage dealing capacity.

And when it is really detrimental to you and you know there will be no Neverborn around, you can drop it and take someone else.

But in the end this is reality of the game - new models every month, big paradigm shift every year and the players need to stay on top of it which means not settling down with a single list. Which brings us back to what has already been said - it's not The Dreamer being too powerful, it's the resistance from some members of community to the idea of the opponent forcing what crew they bring.

That idea, however, has been in Malifaux from the start - at the beginning there wasn't much to change in your list, with limited amount of models. Two years in and the metagame changed enough to require people to get new models and redesign the crews for all their masters.

[Necromorph]

I agree Q, but the dreamer forces the opponent to make many more choices than what crew you bring, and as we all know, there are very very few all comers lists out there that will be able to handle anything....there are simply too many variables, and I think the issue is that the dreamer brings many more unique variables to the game in addition to those normally encountered. Not that this is insurmountable by any means, but as I said before, it gives the dreamer player a tactical advantage by passively "putting more on the opponents plate" so to speak.

[Q'iq'el]

I agree Q, but the dreamer forces the opponent to make many more choices than what crew you bring, and as we all know, there are very very few all comers lists out there that will be able to handle anything....there are simply too many variables, and I think the issue is that the dreamer brings many more unique variables to the game in addition to those normally encountered. Not that this is insurmountable by any means, but as I said before, it gives the dreamer player a tactical advantage by passively "putting more on the opponents plate" so to speak.

I think it's less of the problem of variables, and more in the set ways of thinking - exactly what Lucidicide has brought up in this thread.

We are so used to counter everything by movement and placement, we think it is the only way. There's a reason why seemingly insignificant issue of premeasuring rises so much heat in the community of miniature wargamers - it's because telling range and being able to position perfectly without measuring is the most honed skill and the biggest advantage one can get.

The Dreamer is a master which makes that advantage null and it ruffles feathers.

Nothing about what The Dreamer or the Alps do, taken out of context, is very unique or powerful. There are models with powerful passive abilities and there are models which can get "free" effects out of their AP (Decay's my favorite example - every well placed cast gives multiple AP worth of healing and damaging effects).

All these abilities taken together make The Dreamer tick and if you weaken one element or other, you may find out he doesn't tick at all anymore. Demanding it be done via cuddles is lame and not the way to go. Inventing the ways to do it with your models is something these threads should be about. So let's forget outrunning him and focus on outactivating* him, outresourcing him, outdeploying him and perhaps draining his own resources

*And no, I don't buy the argument he can outactivate anyone with just moving his Alps before he burries them. We started out hearing how impossible to beat it is that he can attack turn 1, before the opponent even activates. Now it doesn't matter anymore when the attack happens? And the opponent if clearly forced to pass these activations The Dreamer is not using to strike, right? Otherwise how to explain that he activates 3 or 4 Alps and the opponent did nothing to make the bomb harder to pull off?

Edited September 29, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Fetid Strumpet]

So Q, obviously you are in the camp that the Dreamer is 100% A-OK totally balanced. I respect your opinion, but disagree with you 100%. I've heard your arguments, and don't by them. You've heard mine, and don't by them. You seem to think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I want the Dreamer cuddled because I can't beat him and don't know how to play. I think that you are blindly devotional to a master that t my eyes clearly has balance issues in the game as currently structured.

I feel that the Dreamer should be cuddled, you feel that Cuddling him would be wrong. Neither of us, or I would venture has been swayed one iota from our starting positions at the beginning of this discussion. I will never be convinced that the Dreamer isn't Overpowered as currently presented, you obviously feel differently.

So my question is, where do we go from here since neither one of us can make convincing arguments for our position?

[Buhallin]

So my question is, where do we go from here since neither one of us can make convincing arguments for our position?

We press on as we have been, with "Neverborn are OP!" threads popping up on a regular basis, and numerous other threads being hijacked constantly by people who aren't willing to play the game as it is, and can't trust that Wyrd's working on it or capable of fixing it without the salvation of their personal intervention.

For those of us who think it's fine, the only thing we can do is endure the constant griping.

For those of you who don't, your options are:

A) Stick around and trust they'll fix it

Believe they'll never fix it, but that the game's playable anyway

C) Quit the game

There's a secondary choice on your part for how miserable you decide to make everyone else in the process, but let's be honest here - we're way, WAY past productive discussion on this.

[Q'iq'el]

So Q, obviously you are in the camp that the Dreamer is 100% A-OK totally balanced. I respect your opinion, but disagree with you 100%. I've heard your arguments, and don't by them. You've heard mine, and don't by them.

I don't consider myself a defender of the Dreamer, but rather a defender of certain rational approach to the problems. I think it is a problem with practical solution in form of inventing and trying out new tactics. You asked what Seamus can do, I posted a proposition... the thread has returned to its previous insubstantial form.

You seem to think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I want the Dreamer cuddled because I can't beat him and don't know how to play. I think that you are blindly devotional to a master that t my eyes clearly has balance issues in the game as currently structured.

You ignore the posts that offer suggestions, you don't show where these suggestions fail or how are they inadequate, but you repost what amounts, more or less, to anti-Dreamer slogans. How about commenting on the list I proposed and showing me where is my idea wrong or how is it going to fail?

I don't have any other conclusions but the one about avoiding the discussion on the concrete.

I feel that the Dreamer should be cuddled, you feel that Cuddling him would be wrong. Neither of us, or I would venture has been swayed one iota from our starting positions at the beginning of this discussion.

Except that I ask for concrete feedback and try to provide solutions to the problem. As far as I can tell, you ignore those and continue asking for cuddles.

Actually since the entire Anti-Dreamer discussions have started, my opinion has swung considerably towards the pro-Dreamer camp (if there is such a thing). I thought he is far more difficult master to face than he really is. We played his rules wrong locally and in a way, which was making the Alp-Bomb nearly unbeatable (Wp test for every Alp around the model, not just one, for example, every strike causing exhaustion damage, not just the strike action etc.). Even then I thought the problem is with me not being up to date with the newest tacticas and such. Only the multi-wp test Alp Bombs were causing a real concern to me and that turned out to be completely wrong interpretation of the rules.

But the main reason my opinion has changed is that people who consider Dreamer OK actually post practical examples and solutions to the problem. Even if there are clear mistakes on the Dreamer part, I consider these valid examples of the real Malifaux. Not only the best players make mistakes, but inducing these mistakes is a big part of every wargame I know. I just don't put any value in the "winning even though opponent made no mistake" idea (that would in fact mean the winner crew is unbeatable and broken).

People who claim he is breaking the game refer to unsubstantial sources - whether it is their local meta (which clearly has the best Dreamer players who never make mistakes), their obvious experience as players or simply nothing but emotional outbursts. I tend not to side with such line of thinking, unless the poster is prepared to make the effort and actually convince the readers his local meta-game is really such a high level or his opponents truly infallible (detailed battle reports being clearly the best way to do it).

So my question is, where do we go from here since neither one of us can make convincing arguments for our position?

How about trying to root the argument in concrete examples taken from actual battle reports? How about accounting for both sides of the game when discussing the real power of abilities? Finally, why not test the solutions proposed by others and try to improve upon them?

Before players get even a shade of chance of convincing developers something is broken, there should be a public debate about actual games and occurrences. Some scrutiny of the involved players' decisions. If it turned out there are situations where one simply cannot win the game, I'm sure Designers would pay attention to the developments.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

For those of us who think it's fine, the only thing we can do is endure the constant griping.

Sad part is some players would really like to develop anti-Dreamer tactica for their masters. He is a real challenge due to the unique mechanics he uses and if there is one thing I can agree with, it's that a casual player has very little chance to develop counters entirely on his own - simply because he won't get enough games agains the Dreamer to try all the solutions.

If every thread we try to contribute to and subscribe to turns out into quasi-religious war between factions, the forum doesn't fulfill it's role anymore.

Considering Malifaux used to have an official forum filled to the brim with practical discussions of tactics, I find the trend really discouraging.

[Lucidicide]

I will never be convinced that the Dreamer isn't Overpowered as currently presented

If this is true, why ARE you arguing? If you will never be convinced that the Dreamer is balanced as it currently stands, there is no argument that CAN be made. Even if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Dreamer is balanced, you are saying you can't be convinced of it.

Honestly, this statement makes it clear that your opinions should not be valid when considering balancing the Dreamer. Because if he does need balancing, the opinions on balancing should not come from people who cannot hear the other side of the argument.

For those of us who think it's fine, the only thing we can do is endure the constant griping.

For those of you who don't, your options are:

A) Stick around and trust they'll fix it

Believe they'll never fix it, but that the game's playable anyway

C) Quit the game

There's a secondary choice on your part for how miserable you decide to make everyone else in the process, but let's be honest here - we're way, WAY past productive discussion on this.

First, I will say that some people are past productive discussion, but those people can easily grab a thread.

Second, I have to disagree with your list of options. Wyrd has provided testing because they obviously care about the community and their thoughts. If there are imbalances, no one should say "I hope Wyrd notices." Rather, their concerns should be brought up.

Really, what would be best is a sticky discussion on the Dreamer and/or Alps on the Neverborn forum so there is one huge discussion on it and not a lot of little discussions. Most people can ignore the thread, and hopefully a few enterprising individuals would help monitor it and keep it on topic.

Before players get even a shade of chance of convincing developers something is broken' date=' there should be a public debate about actual games and occurrences. Some scrutiny of the involved players' decisions. If it turned out there are situations where one simply cannot win the game, I'm sure Designers would pay attention to the developments.[/quote']

Agreed. Beta testing involves playing the game and discussing actual examples. I have beta tested things, and the most convincing argument comes from gameplay examples.

On that note, it is the responsibility of the people who have the problem with things as they stand to prove there is a problem, not the responsibility of those who think it is fine to prove it is fine.

I would be happy to review battle reports with an Alp Bomb and get into true discussion about what could be improved and whether it could be improved enough to change the tide of the game.

[Fading Memory]

I'm just now jumping into this discussion and have only read page 17.

I'm not sure if this will help, but as a Dreamer player, I can honestly say he is the only master, of all the games I have played, where I have forfeited on turn 1 in a game of Shared Slaughter before my opponent finished activating all of his models. Turn 1 was that bad and it wasn't bad luck on my part or good luck on my opponents. My opponent baited me to attack one of his models and I fell for a trap. He had a gut feeling I would place models around it. I did then Rasputina unleashed hell upon them. I lost Teddy and a few other models were wounded. I gave up because I was out numbered, outclassed, and out matched.

If my friend is up to it, I may see if he is willing to help me write an How To Beat The Dreamer Tactica. We own enough models together to come up with a good tactica I think. Although he may get board playing against nothing but the Dreamer. If anyone is interested in helping, PM me and we'll go from there.

[Math Mathonwy]

What models are so hyper specialized in those criteria that they can not be used to also achieve your schemes and starategies?

Most models certainly can be. OTOH Alps have effectively infinite movement when taken with the Dreamer and their main form of attack doesn't require APs (or them taking a turn) making them extremely good at doing certain objectives (and, incidentally, the slow they spread around very effectively denies objectives to the opponent).

So yeah, they are extremely good in that regard as well.

I don't consider myself a defender of the Dreamer' date=' but rather a defender of certain rational approach to the problems. I think it is a problem with practical solution in form of inventing and trying out new tactics. You asked what Seamus can do, I posted a proposition... the thread has returned to its previous insubstantial form.[/quote']

Note that Fetid's original advice post for Seamus way back in thread #1 was probably the most insightful advice anyone has provided to date.

Relying on opponent mistakes to win is seriously a losing proposition in the long run. If your own Dreamer players are kinda newbies, it might seem like a valid solution, but once they get on top of their game it ceases to be useful advice. Dreamer holds all the cards due to his easy access to stalling shenanigans and near infinite movement so "forcing" him into mistakes is nigh impossible. Dreamer and the Daydreams are extremely easy to hide if the board has even a modicum of terrain and all in all, due to how the crew works, the more terrain there is, the better they perform (except against Kirai who works completely ridiculously in heavy terrain).

Also, he needs to mess up massively for it to provide a way to wholly dismantle the crew. Waiting for such a thing just isn't a viable counter to anything.

So yeah, your opinion has changed when enough people offer bad advice that you start to believe it. Wow.

Most of the advice against Dreamer indeed hinges on the Dreamer player being dumb as bricks and mindlessly executing the bomb as opposed to placing the models intelligently at the right moment.

Advice such as "take a Freikorps specialist" is a fool's game since LCB can kill that model or the crew can avoid it. Unless your whole crew is made up of AoE combatants that really, really doesn't solve anything.

I have lost one or two games of Malifaux tops against non-Dreamer Masters while having been playing since the original playtesting. Perhaps I indeed suck mightily, but I somehow doubt it.

You have to admit that a lot of the debate from both sides consists of such. "Everything is fine" is basically an emotional response born from the need to believe that the game is perfect as opposed to taking a critical eye at the game. Your insistence on resolving the problem by finding some philosopher's stone of a counter strategy, though admirable in a way, is, in effect, an emotional response.

Here's a link to a description of my first loss against the Dreamer:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=305104&postcount=32

The practical advice I received amounted basically to "use a Crooked" (as well as Fetid's points about approaching the game which were good stuff as well).

[Math Mathonwy]

I'm just now jumping into this discussion and have only read page 17.

I'm not sure if this will help, but as a Dreamer player, I can honestly say he is the only master, of all the games I have played, where I have forfeited on turn 1 in a game of Shared Slaughter before my opponent finished activating all of his models. Turn 1 was that bad and it wasn't bad luck on my part or good luck on my opponents. My opponent baited me to attack one of his models and I fell for a trap. He had a gut feeling I would place models around it. I did then Rasputina unleashed hell upon them. I lost Teddy and a few other models were wounded. I gave up because I was out numbered, outclassed, and out matched.

Would you fall for that trap a second time? A third? As making a mistake once is entirely human and we all do it, but a true counter needs to be effective time and again.

You don't describe the bait, but I'm pretty sure that I could give you pointers on how to avoid such a fate real easy in the future.

[Q'iq'el]

Here's a link to a description of my first loss against the Dreamer:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=305104&postcount=32

The practical advice I received amounted basically to "use a Crooked" (as well as Fetid's points about approaching the game which were good stuff as well).

There are three components to that report, as I see it:

1. Bad luck. This is inevitably one of the biggest factors in many games, so it cannot be ignored. There's also nothing else to do but admit that in this game if the luck is bad, you lose and there's nothing one can do about it. The small format gives little chance to recover from any serious streak of bad luck. It is only partially mitigated by ability to cheat, because the Hand is a very limited resource.

This boils down to an argument about taste though. From my experience many Warhammer players dislike armies which are all about random outcomes and luck. I think such players wouldn't like Malifaux from the start. Cheat Fate mechanic may lure them in, but that is only until they realize it is there only to bring a small bit of predictability to a system which is inherently more random.

2. Resources. It is related to bad luck with draws and flips you mention, but there's no clear indication what your hand was, what your opponent's hand was (what was he able to cheat, how often etc.) or what pools you played with (initial pools can be calculated I guess, but not the pools at certain events, since it's not a step by step raport) which make it impossible to judge if the resources were managed OK or if there was a problem on this side of the game.

For example, your Necropunk forcing him to burn some soulstones is a pretty good trade off, if his pool was low, but we don't know that. On the other hand you say LCB was able to pop out and burn through Seamus' entire Hand and pool in one activation. Does it mean you had only 2 Soulstones? Why? If it was the result of Onslaught (first trying to cheat, losing duel, getting onslaught off and cheating and Soulstoning again), then I'd say it is a bit too timid (or too wasteful, if you had large pool but used it up before the event) use of Soulstones. Against things like Onslaught it always make sense to burn them immediately.

3. Activation order. This is not critisicm, but rather an inquiry. Why did you have to activate Seamus when he got bombed? Why not one of the Belles outside of the bomb range, to pull some models away from Seamus so that when he finally activates, the damage is lower? Was it even viable tactic? Perhaps bringing at least 2 Belles would give you even better counter (simultaneously activate them both, to deal with 3~4 Alps after the Bomb drops).

Obviously not bringing any ranged AoE (in form of Crooked Men, which you mention) is pretty valid criticism in itself, simply because the game is build around hiring the right models for the encounter (and not hiring them amounts, in the end, to the player's mistake).

What do you think about the list I proposed in this thread? Do you think it would work better for you?

And to add final comment about Dreamer's ability to stall the bomb. There's clear cost to stalling it - at the very least he is activating the Alps and passing or trying to grab some nearby objectives with them. In such case, these Alps may be dropped on you later on, but they won't be able to activate anymore. In other words, if you don't activate the model they targeted for the bomb that turn right away, they have no way to damage it, even for several activations.

Obviously that means the list of the bomb targets shrinks rapidly as the Dreamer waits - this is the second big disadvantage. He wants to target models that haven't activated yet, but these models activate as he waits for better conditions. This is second disadvantage of stalling the bomb. IMO it makes sense not to go with original activation plan and try to save the models that can easily survive or ignore the bomb till the last as soon as you see him stalling.

Thirdly the Fetid's chief complaint and the thing many other players seem to argue was that the real advantage comes from dropping the bomb before the opponent even gets a chance to activate. I can see this as being the nastiest way to execute the bomb - not only all of the models caught have to activate later, but the opponent is forced to deploy in defensive formations always, to his own detriment.

If the Dreamer decides to stall the bomb, big part of that nastiness goes away - sure, you still wasted your Deployment on a disadvantageous (in terms of getting to objectives) position, but he gets less targets (as I mentioned above) and more importantly you get a chance to counter incoming bomb before it really happens (as an example, by forcing him to target models you put forward rather than the models you don't want targeted just yet).

Not saying he doesn't limit your options just by being there (obviously you need to maintain defensive formation until he finally drops the bomb and that means no way to quickly go for objectives etc.), but at the same time you limit his options too - he has to keep his crew ready for the strike and won't be able to reach many objectives as well.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Math Mathonwy]

There are three components to that report, as I see it:

1. Bad luck. This is inevitably one of the biggest factors in many games, so it cannot be ignored. There's also nothing else to do but admit that in this game if the luck is bad, you lose and there's nothing one can do about it. The small format gives little chance to recover from any serious streak of bad luck. It is only partially mitigated by ability to cheat, because the Hand is a very limited resource.

The only real bad luck I had was with my mediocre hands (except on the final turn, when my lowest card was 11), Seamus failing the resist duel against Alps, and with Bete Noire whiffing. But stuff like that happens in every game. Only bad player blame luck consistently and this was certainly not a disastrously unlucky game.

This boils down to an argument about taste though. From my experience many Warhammer players dislike armies which are all about random outcomes and luck. I think such players wouldn't like Malifaux from the start. Cheat Fate mechanic may lure them in, but that is only until they realize it is there only to bring a small bit of predictability to a system which is inherently more random.

Huh? Soul stones and cheating eliminate a lot of luck from the most important stuff. And since the deck has one of every card, that evens out the luck factor as well.

The only big thing I don't like is Red Jokers on flips, like my Ophelia hitting Ramos with a :-fate, flipping the Red Joker and doing 16 points of damage to the unlucky Arcanist killing him instantly, which is something that isn't any player's fault and just basically wins the game in a very anti-climactic way that isn't fun or fulfilling for anyone.

2. Resources. It is related to bad luck with draws and flips you mention, but there's no clear indication what your hand was, what your opponent's hand was (what was he able to cheat, how often etc.) or what pools you played with (initial pools can be calculated I guess, but not the pools at certain events, since it's not a step by step raport) which make it impossible to judge if the resources were managed OK or if there was a problem on this side of the game.

I believe my resource managements is very good. I mean, I'm obviously biased, but I have a pretty impressive record and have played a lot of skirmish games with resource management elements and am used to thinking about them in detail and performing risk analysis on the fly.

For example, your Necropunk forcing him to burn some soulstones is a pretty good trade off, if his pool was low, but we don't know that.

His pool was full, but still, burning away three SS is a good trade for sure (and forcing him to use a (0)Action to paralyzing the bugger or risk getting stuck. I'm confident that it was the right thing to do.

On the other hand you say LCB was able to pop out and burn through Seamus' entire Hand and pool in one activation. Does it mean you had only 2 Soulstones? Why? If it was the result of Onslaught (first trying to cheat, losing duel, getting onslaught off and cheating and Soulstoning again), then I'd say it is a bit too timid (or too wasteful, if you had large pool but used it up before the event) use of Soulstones. Against things like Onslaught it always make sense to burn them immediately.

I had a pool of four or five. I used them against the Onslaught, but since paired and higher Cb is such a crazy advantage, I was always cheating/using SS first and at a disadvantage. I also had to use SS to damage prevention when getting hit by Flay since LCB's minimum damage with Flay is four. Finally, I had to save a SS for the resist duel against the Alps (which I failed despite the SS, but that was relative bad luck (I recall calculating the odds of losing that duel were something like 20% so not out of the realm of possibility but pretty unlucky).

3. Activation order. This is not critisicm, but rather an inquiry. Why did you have to activate Seamus when he got bombed? Why not one of the Belles outside of the bomb range, to pull some models away from Seamus so that when he finally activates, the damage is lower? Was it even viable tactic? Perhaps bringing at least 2 Belles would give you even better counter (simultaneously activate them both, to deal with 3~4 Alps after the Bomb drops).

Seamus was killed on my opponent's next activation, so getting the last gasp from him was rather important IMO. Especially as Undead Psychosis was my best bet of keeping most of my forces intact. As for pulling the models away, my opponent had placed them intelligently in a way that made pulling them away impossible. I did pull Coppelius as he was the only one I could pull that was of any consequence.

Having two Belles would've made the positioning more difficult, but then I would have had to drop something else.

Obviously not bringing any ranged AoE (in form of Crooked Men, which you mention) is pretty valid criticism in itself, simply because the game is build around hiring the right models for the encounter (and not hiring them amounts, in the end, to the player's mistake).

Yeah, it's a valid criticism. I'm not convinced that it would've been the panacea that people are suggesting it to be, but it would've been useful. Also, I should've reflipped my strategy as the one I got (Reconnoiter? the one where you claim table quarters) was extremely difficult to pull off and necessitated less than ideal crew choices. OTOH the Necropunks really were kinda the stars of the show, so I can't fault them too much.

What do you think about the list I proposed in this thread? Do you think it would work better for you?

Certainly not for the strategy I got. Dropping the Dead Rider as you suggested makes the list a lot better against the Dreamer but worse against other Neverborn.

Depending on the strategy, were I playing the Dreamer, I would kill the Rider with LCB either as a one turn hit and run or as part of bombing the main group. The shafted marker can be triggered by something relatively inconsequential and when that's gone, you're in trouble. Stitcheds can be used to disrupt lures and Alps can take care of Seamus and Crookeds (as you said you'd clump them). A defensive stanced Alp is very unlikely to die to a slowed model other than the Rider (or Seamus shooting, but why would you let him do that?) since your force features so few true damage dealers.

And to add final comment about Dreamer's ability to stall the bomb. There's clear cost to stalling it - at the very least he is activating the Alps and passing or trying to grab some nearby objectives with them. In such case, these Alps may be dropped on you later on, but they won't be able to activate anymore. In other words, if you don't activate the model they targeted for the bomb that turn right away, they have no way to damage it, even for several activations.

Obviously that means the list of the bomb targets shrinks rapidly as the Dreamer waits - this is the second big disadvantage. He wants to target models that haven't activated yet, but these models activate as he waits for better conditions. This is second disadvantage of stalling the bomb. IMO it makes sense not to go with original activation plan and try to save the models that can easily survive or ignore the bomb till the last as soon as you see him stalling.

Thirdly the Fetid's chief complaint and the thing many other players seem to argue was that the real advantage comes from dropping the bomb before the opponent even gets a chance to activate. I can see this as being the nastiest way to execute the bomb - not only all of the models caught have to activate later, but the opponent is forced to deploy in defensive formations always, to his own detriment.

If the Dreamer decides to stall the bomb, big part of that nastiness goes away - sure, you still wasted your Deployment on a disadvantageous (in terms of getting to objectives) position, but he gets less targets (as I mentioned above) and more importantly you get a chance to counter incoming bomb before it really happens (as an example, by forcing him to target models you put forward rather than the models you don't want targeted just yet).

Not saying he doesn't limit your options just by being there (obviously you need to maintain defensive formation until he finally drops the bomb and that means no way to quickly go for objectives etc.), but at the same time you limit his options too - he has to keep his crew ready for the strike and won't be able to reach many objectives as well.

But here again you expect the Dreamer player to play stupid. He's the one holding the cards. He can stall if it's good for him or he can unleash the bomb straight away if that's better.

In some situations stalling makes perfect sense. One way of mitigating the Alp bomb that gets suggested a lot is to avoid clumping your models. But since you can't pass in this game (something I have always touted as a weakness in design, but one that I can ultimately live with, mind) you need to activate something and if you're spread out, that severely hampers your game (as even spread out, you should still retain the capability of assisting between your models or else you're super easy prey for the Dreamer crew). So now you either clump up or lose the ability to effectively assist. Both are bad against Alps (and Stitcheds make assisting a lot more difficult since they can keep the fog running without activating through bury shenanigans).

Also note that Alp stalling means that they will be in defensive stance making killing them far less trivial.

[Math Mathonwy]

I believe that my main point got kinda lost somewhere in there.

My main point is that even if you can device a list that has a sorta good chances against Dreamer, I would still bet for the Dreamer winning were the players of semi-equal skill. A hundred games against the Dreamer with the proposed Seamus list and I'd think that the Dreamer would win at least 70% of the games.

When playing against the Dreamer you are always on the knife edge. Make a small mistake in the activation order or placement of the models and *boom* - you lose.

Meanwhile, the Dreamer is very forgiving to play with.

The tremendous mobility makes most strategies and schemes pretty easy to do and, most importantly, you don't need to commit to doing them straight away. Slower crews need to start working on those schemes and strategies straight away forcing them into unoptimal situations that the Dreamer can capitalize on. If played with some patience and even a modicum of tactical acumen, the Dreamer can bide it's time and whittle away at the enemy crew's edges while setting up for the killing pounce.

Now, you might enjoy that feeling of constant pressure that the Dreamer forces on you. But that doesn't mean that he isn't an OP Master and people who enjoy balance in the game are rightly criticizing the current status quo.

[Q'iq'el]

I've heard the advice not to spread the models several times. I'm not convinced about the validity of it at all.

If you clump your models against Rasputina, the disadvantage is very clear and it is obvious why (Immediate damage to multiple models, providing the opponent for more targets to destroy with less AP and resources spend etc).

People treat Alp bomb as an AoE effect, but it is an AoE effect going off one model at a time. Clumping is bad only if you know you won't be able to hit back at the Alp bomb and you want Dreamer to have to move around more. But if you actually plan to hit him hard and you want his Nightmares to be out to take the beating, there's no point in giving him your crew piecemeal. Contrary, a large group of models will present him with positioning difficulties and may even render the bomb less effective against some models (if they are in range of only 2 out of 3 Alps for example).

I think this applies to Seamus to a degree - if he bombs Dead Rider, you don't activate Dead Rider, but simultaneously activate Belles. We're speaking about two groups standing within 6"~8" - Stitched Together won't hide the Alps from Lures, if all you need to get LoS to the Alps is move 2~3". Alp that is lured just 3" away is not affecting the original target anymore... and if lured from within 7" it will get hit with the free melee Strike, which has a decent chance of killing it.

Moreover it's a push, so you can use it to get the threatened model away from the Alps, before you activate it, in turn making the bomb ineffective. Because it is Push Toward, you can actually use terrain and go around models to change the push path and as such move him further away from the Alps than the direct route would allow (it's legal as long as it ends closer to her than it started). It's a bit tricky with the Dead Rider, but if it managed to stay at 8~9 wounds and has Pass Through active, it is very easy to pull him out of an Alp bomb, without activating him.

Second observation is about probability calculations and randomness of Malifaux. You say essentially what I said, except from the different point of view. "A small bit of predictability" = "Soul stones and cheating eliminate a lot of luck from the most important stuff."

We simply have different outlook on the value of these mechanics.

"And since the deck has one of every card, that evens out the luck factor as well."

In my view the value of flips evens out thorough the turn (if you use up the whole deck), but that doesn't make the luck much less of a factor. It simply doesn't make individual flips any less random, because most events hinge around 1~2 flips. Card counting could probably introduce higher levels of predictability here, but I don't want to do that.

Random as they may seem, 30-dice rolls in WHFB battles at least lean towards the average rolls.

In my opinion The Control Hand is simply too small to affect most of the flips I'd qualify as important and the Pool is effectively just one more flip per turn - you decide when you get it, but the amount of Soulstone flips went bad speaks heaps about the general unreliability of the resource. There obviously are cases when it is almost guaranteed to work as intended - a healing flip for example will fail only on Black Joker, but these are not the cases where Soulstones are used to mitigate randomness of fate flips.

As a way to boost the value of your fate cheating card in combat, the Soulstones are an excellent resource, but then you need a card to cheat with in the first place - the Control Hand deals with randomness and Soulstone adjusts the power value of the flip.

The Fate Based mechanic shines when the matchup and luck allow the player to hoard a good Hand and create very favorable situation on the table by turn 3 or 4. An outburst of deadliness with high cheats and Soulstones to boost can swing the game very easily. But the problem is not all matchups allow for such hoarding (Dreamer definitely doesn't) and it still amounts to counting on luck.

It is not intended as criticism. Personally I like a lot the dynamics the Fate Deck mechanics create. The luck in games tends to be swingy, back and forth and even against the same opponent and crew every game brings drastically different play.

I don't see it as bringing kind of reliability or predictability many very competitive players may count on.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Q'iq'el