No Useless Models, Just Rookie Players!

[infblue13]

I'm tired of hearing people say that models suck, or are useless. While I agree that a particular model may not make for a good choice against a particular opponent ( like Bete Noir against a non-iving crew ), I find that everytime I think a model is useless, it's because I haven't figured out what it is used for. Sometimes it turns out that it is my play style that makes the model a poor choice. In any case, Malifaux is the only game I have ever played were models dont become obsolete and useless. If someone says something is useless, ask someone else. Especially if they can't tell you why it's "useless". I assure you, that model has a use.

[Calmdown]

I'm tired of hearing people say that models suck, or are useless. While I agree that a particular model may not make for a good choice against a particular opponent ( like Bete Noir against a non-iving crew ), I find that everytime I think a model is useless, it's because I haven't figured out what it is used for. Sometimes it turns out that it is my play style that makes the model a poor choice. In any case, Malifaux is the only game I have ever played were models dont become obsolete and useless. If someone says something is useless, ask someone else. Especially if they can't tell you why it's "useless". I assure you, that model has a use.

I assure you you're wrong.

Just because you can find a use for a model doesn't mean that that use is useful enough to make the model worth taking. Give me one circumstance under which you would ever run Bishop, for example.

Some models are just bad. There's nothing wrong with that in theory. There has to be bad stuff for there to be good stuff. As long as one faction doesnt get too much good or bad stuff and throws it all out of whack, as is the situation with Malifaux now.

And realising the difference between plain bad and niche use is one of the marks of a good player.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Calmdown

[nilus]

All games, even Malifaux, have models that become obsolete.

Skirmish games have this problem much more then large army games. When you are only taking 5 to 9 models everyone has to count. Sometimes there are just models that replace an old model and do it better. Its the nature of the beast.

I agree useless is a strong word but there are some models that are just not worth it at the moment. Of course new books, errata or a whole new edition could change that.

[Huang Da Wei]

for useless read 'not as good as others at the same point cost' or 'this one gives you much better options'

[micahwc]

Malifaux Child

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Name one totem you would take the Malifaux Child over in any faction, for any combination of strategies and schemes.

[Bruglyother]

Just because you can find a use for a model doesn't mean that that use is useful enough to make the model worth taking. Give me one circumstance under which you would ever run Bishop, for example..

I rather enjoy using Bishop in board control type strategies. He's real good at holding a group of opponents in one place for an extended period, especially if given just a small amount of support. I like to tie up enemies trying for breakthroughs, or tie up masters in Distract. These are the kinds of things he's good at. But people get so caught up in the fact that he is not damaging enough. Yes, I do think he's a little overpriced, but far from useless.

[Calmdown]

I rather enjoy using Bishop in board control type strategies. He's real good at holding a group of opponents in one place for an extended period, especially if given just a small amount of support. I like to tie up enemies trying for breakthroughs, or tie up masters in Distract. These are the kinds of things he's good at. But people get so caught up in the fact that he is not damaging enough. Yes, I do think he's a little overpriced, but far from useless.

For that i could use:

2 belles and have 2ss left

Dead Rider

Von Schill

3 night terrors +1ss

Bishop isnt even close to any one of these.

This isnt a bishop thread, but the point is, useless dosnt mean you cant play the model (any model can flip well and be good...) but means that there is no circumstance in which there isnt a better option.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Calmdown

[Fetid Strumpet]

+1 to Calmdown's post.

[nilus]

Exactly. I think useless is a strong word. Perhaps competitive is a better term. People can still play Bishop and he can maybe do good for you. But point for point you can make a lot better choices in almost any crew.

[Bruglyother]

To be more accurate, I think useless is the wrong word, not just a strong word. From all I have seen, only the Malifaux child truly strikes me as useless. (Seriously, the first time I read it my immediate reaction was..."umm, why") All others fall in to the category of situational or better options.

Going back to the Bishop example, I gave a perfectly legitimate use for him, thus negating the statement of "useless." Now, I also stated I think he is over-costed, and yes, there are possibly better options. But that does not make him useless. Just not the best choice.

This applies to most things people gripe about as being useless. I think there would be less argument about it if people were more clear on their meanings. I also think people need to remember that it's not just about the competitive aspects. Sometimes a model just works with a theme better.

[Hatchethead]

"Not optimal"

[Fetid Strumpet]

This seems to be a very odd argument about semantics.

[Hatchethead]

I wouldn't say it's an "argument". More a "tangent".

[Cats Laughing]

I wouldn't say it's an "argument". More a "tangent".

I would say that semantics is almost always the argument in these cases. Group A says Model #1 is bad/useless/junk, when they really mean various levels of "There are better options than Model #1" Group B hears "If anyone takes Model #1, they're going to lose" and argues against that point saying Model #1 is not bad or useless. Group B really means "You can still win games with Model #1" but Group A often hears "Model #1 is great" and the circle continues.

Basically this circle focuses on the meaning of "bad" "useless" or other words used by each group.

-Group A uses the words "Bad" and "Useless" to mean that a model is outshone by other models that are better. At the same time they usually imply, or state, that due to being worse than other options, you shouldn't take the Bad/Useless model. Group A tends to be focused on the competitive facet of the game, where even minor advantages can matter.

-Group B uses the phrases "Not Bad" and "Not Useless" to mean that a model can still function in-game and therefore has it's uses. Group B typically doesn't concern itself with comparisons to other models and often implies or states that you can still take the referenced model and do well. Group B, however, is typically not focused on the level of competitiveness where minor advantages can matter.

Essentially both groups are arguing at cross purposes because of semantic differences...

[Mike3838]

While we can agree that some models are not optimal, the OP is very wrong. His assertion is that every model has a situation in which they're the BEST choice, but we're all just too crap to see it.

Mike

[Valcurdra]

I think the OP has a point.

There are many models that are written off as being useless by the forum community that are actually not as bad as people think. There are also models I believe are overrated.

Having said that calmdown is also right that every game will have models that just flat out are not worth taking compared with better choices.

It also really depends if you play for fun or competition. For a some players a so called useless model might be worth taking because the model looks cool or just that they don't have the alternative assembled and painted yet.

[Calmdown]

It also really depends if you play for fun or competition. For a some players a so called useless model might be worth taking because the model looks cool or just that they don't have the alternative assembled and painted yet.

That is the ONLY valid reason to take certain models. But for the sake of most forum discussion, we generally discount that reason unless someone specifically states theyre trying to do a fluff or theme crew; if we assume everyone is just playing for coolness factor, 99% of threads on the forum would be unanswerable to a reasonable degree

[Hatchethead]

I would say that semantics is almost always the argument in these cases.

I was attempting to be a "smartass". I failed, apparently.

[Cats Laughing]

I was attempting to be a "smartass". I failed, apparently.

Bugger, so did I...

[Calmdown]

You're both fired.

[ravenborne]

Its very interesting that whenever a discussion of balance comes up, someone always wants to interject lack of skill as a reason things are imbalanced. Thats fine and to a point its true, but I would suggest that there are multiple forms of balance.

If we are looking at system balance, then we take the player out of the equation. We assume all players are of equal perfect skill and make all the right choices. Only then can we discuss the actual performance of a model.

When you look at it like that, true balance is almost impossible. Players call a model a bad model as a judgement about consistent poor performance in the overall system. There really is such a thing as suboptimal models.

[Soundwave]

There are no worthless models, only crappy flips.

EDIT: Oh, there's also cheesy opponents, of course.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Soundwave

[ravenborne]

Well, when you put it that way, sure.

[Math Mathonwy]

I like it that in these sorts of arguments over semantics, one side always wants to interpret the word in such absolute terms that it will be a completely invalid as a concept. Defining in one's own little head "cheese" as meaning utterly unbeatable no matter what and then going proudly forward banging the drum that "there is no cheese".

It's utterly mystifying. Do these people think that a) someone would agree with that definition and still claim what they are claiming or that somehow this super clever semantical trick will score them points somehow in some invisible war over who's the king of the forums?

Why on earth would you interpret a word, like 'useless' in this case, as to mean something so utterly laughable as "playing with that model is no better than playing with a force that's their soulstone cost smaller than the opponent's"? Obviously no one is claiming that for any model and it would be utterly crazy to say something like that.

It also seems that this sort of view has a tendency to morph into some kind of weird omniscience belief in the developers where criticizing an aspect (a model) of a game is utterly wrong and can't be right since the developers developed it that way and they are, after all, omniscient and they must have a grand plan and either the players are too stupid to realize how everything is perfectly balanced or that the grand plan will come to fruition in the next book that was designed well before the previous book and brings heaven on earth.

[CRC]

Because that's what the English word "useless" means. It means without any use. It a model can attack with a hope of doing damage, that's a "use", and so on.

It's being used here as hyperbole, but with the way the internet distorts communication, it should not be surprising that some people interpret it with its literal meaning.

It's pretty easy to prove the Malifaux child isn't useless. If she cost 0 (zero) soulstones, she's see a fair amount of use, even if only from resurrectionists who want a 1pt corpse counter. From this, we deduce that she is merely overpriced.