Polite Suggestion re Hamelin Errata

[magicpockets]

As Sketch has confirmed they're looking a rebalancing Hamelin I wanted to politely suggest that his Avatar be included in that before it is released. Frenzied Piping has previously discussed issues (i.e. you can't practically use it) and whilst the idea is nice, the combination of Crippling Plague, Poxed Servants, Contagious Eruption, The Gift of Contagion, Piper's Swarm and A Tyrant's Judgement is insanely brutal - especially if you start to stack, kill and resummon rat catchers to get multiple Kill All Rats in the mix. It's a 20" Diameter circle of instant death for the entire enemy crew.

Please take the above feedback as constructive, and please tread carefully with my very expensive collection of Hamelin models....

[Fetid Strumpet]

Again it is not my problem with Hamelin, as has been stated I don't have much direct experience with him, it is my problem with Bully, solely that mechanic. I would hate that ability no matter who had it. I would hate it if my models had it. I would hate that ability if a model with no ability to make models insignificant had it. To say that just because I've not played against Hamelin very much means I can have no idea whether the mechanic itself is sound or not is a fallacy. It could certainly lend extra support to my argument, but in no way invalidates my argument. Abilities that hinder targeting are fairly common in the game, Harmless, Pitiful, Irresistible, and obscuring terrain are just some. I have a great deal of experience with these mechanics, as well as the mechanics of the game, so to attempt to brush off my issues with Bully as without merit, simply because I have not played against Hamelin that often is a classic example the the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority.

Magicpockets is an expert with Hamelin.

Magicpockets says that Bully is not broken.

Therefore Bully is not broken.

Totally fallacious. It lends support to his argument, but does not invalidate the discussion. If you could please just address in a logical well reasoned argument your reasons that justify why Hamelin, and ONLY in regards to Hamelin, deserves to have an ability that says "NO", and stops interactons, vs one which still allows and opponent to have some chance of targeting him, such as Pitiful, Harmless, and Irresistible do?

Again I totally respect your opinions Magicpockets, but your counter argument seemed to be along the lines of "Other things in the game are possibly broken so this is fine". You also bring up his insignificant mechanic as if that is what I have the issue with, I don't. Insignificant is not always the Kiss of Death it doesn't stop interactions between models. Bully is a flat "NO" to interacting, especially with the power piece on Hamelin's side of the board.

I'm sorry this seems to be making you upset, especially in your, I feel, incorrect assumption that this leads to a bad impression on new players. I feel that more discussion is always good, and that any elements of the game that are controversial, as is Hamelin's mechanics, should be brought up to new players. Knowing about the issue, and then making up your own mind about it to agree or disagree is far better than being blindsided by it.

[Adanedhel]

^^ Bully affecting Ht1 is kind of the point though, he intimidates small and insignificant models

Taking out the + on damage indeed won't bother me too much, I prefer Hamelin as a controlcrew (which is not to say this would be the best method for playing Hamelin, just that once you get the hang of Leveticus, you're not really that impressed by damage done anymore, and as such to prefer other stuff in other crews^^ ), and I can see the 12" bubble work.

I still stand my ground on the previous though, you defend Bully working against insignificant by way of saying; yes, but you can resist the duel, or you can get rid of it by removing effects. You cannot resist being Ht1, and you can't get rid of it in any way (okay, growing would do it, but really, that's only tots), it's that inherent uselessness vs Hamelin that is the gamebreaker to me here, while you can try to counteract Insignificant, I'd like you to try counteracting Ht1.

Worse, since you either don't know which Outcast you're going to play against (open/closed Faction), or will be limited in number of models you can take (Fixed, or Masterlist), this might be a high strain on taking Ht1 models in your masterlist, or in any game that is played against Outcasts, without any way of getting out of that plight.

Also weird, but the Ratcatchers ability targets only Ht1 and not insignificant. I think, starting from him, swapping Ht1 for Insignificant makes him more normal (considering he CAN make models insignificant), and then just copy that ability to The Plagues, for this is one of the only 2 abilitienames in the game which share 2 different executions (the other being The Face Of Death, a spell for Terrifying by Seamus, a trigger for + on damage in Leveticus' hands)

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

And Fetid, control like Dora and Hamelin inflict is not worse then death, you can still do stuff, even if only modifying activation control

And now, for funs and giggles

Ways to get rid of insignificant

Guild masters,

Witchling Stalkers, works for anyone except Lucius, and that's without even thinking of other things. So they're fine.

Ressers,

all ressers can summon new stuff to replace other stuff, it can be quite hard, but ressers also got acces to quite some ItI so that only pipes can still bother you, still, resummoning is a viable way to get around it, Sebastian and Punk Zombies can easily get him regardless of targetting

Arcanists,

Rasputina: put something next to him after he already activated, bite of winter, blast on it, shatter, profit

Ramos, blow up your own stuff remember no targetting

Kaeris, blow up construct, spread burning, and irrisitable pulse him

I'm not sure for Marcus and Colette

Neverborn

Pandora: it's not much but the Mark Of Insanity makes sure your sorrow may have Hamelin whenever they like

Z: hex off

Collodi: Stitcheds in neighboorhood to Collodi are never insignificant, but they are indeed your only choice

Dreamer, why exactly is Hamelin seeing your key minions?

Lilith, not sure here will admit that

Outcasts:

Leveticus I described somewhere else, and am to lazy to look up now, but he's one of the better matchups vs Hamelin (and since Dreamers errata, I'd be really hard pressed not to call Levi at least tier 2)

Gremlins: Som'er actually is a pretty good matchup, giving the number of irresitable amounts of Dg you can do, not to mention superb discard mechanisms, ophelia is as is hosed though

VS, Viks, I'm not sure but think hit them before they hit you? I never really looked deep in those 2, I consider them to be a bit boring

[Gollum528]

perhaps change bully to the following:

Bully: Ht 1 models targetting this model receive :-fate on all duels targetting this model.

it means that Bully is still very effective in limiting what can be done, but it also means that there is still *some* chance of overcoming it.

What if it was like Insidious Madness' ability where you have to pass a wp-> wp/12 duel or it receives :-fate on duels targeting this model for the rest of it's activation.

[ZiggyQubert]

Magicpockets is an expert with Hamelin.

Magicpockets says that Bully is not broken.

Therefore Bully is not broken.

Although funny enoug, Magicpockets hasent been saying that, hes been all for changing the bully mechanic. All he said was you have no experience with this so stop acting like you have the ultamate answer, and admit that you are just theory fauxing and give some credit to thoes people that have experience with it.

[magicpockets]

Magicpockets is an expert with Hamelin.

Magicpockets says that Bully is not broken.

Therefore Bully is not broken.

No,

MagicPockets is an expert with Hamelin (I'll give you that one)

MagicPockets has given a reasoned explanation why he feels Bully isn't broken - especially compared to models being killed

Fetid Stumpet has given no reasons other than "I don't like Bully"

When challenged Fetid Strumpet seems to have no valid reason so resorts to personal slurs etc

Therefore Bully is not broken

If you could please just address in a logical well reasoned argument your reasons that justify why Hamelin, and ONLY in regards to Hamelin, deserves to have an ability that says "NO", and stops interactons, vs one which still allows and opponent to have some chance of targeting him, such as Pitiful, Harmless, and Irresistible do?

All masters have this, it's calling killing your crew. Have you not noticed Hamelin SUCKS at dealing damage from range and even his melee attack is a double edged sword? He takes you out via insignificant rather than killing you.

Again I totally respect your opinions Magicpockets, but your counter argument seemed to be along the lines of "Other things in the game are possibly broken so this is fine".

Where have I said this?

Bully is a flat "NO" to interacting, especially with the power piece on Hamelin's side of the board.

No, it ONLY stop you interacting with Hamelin - don;t give people the impression it's more than this.

I'm sorry this seems to be making you upset, especially in your, I feel, incorrect assumption that this leads to a bad impression on new players. I feel that more discussion is always good, and that any elements of the game that are controversial, as is Hamelin's mechanics, should be brought up to new players. Knowing about the issue, and then making up your own mind about it to agree or disagree is far better than being blindsided by it.

I'm not upset for my sake, I'm just annoyed because you're (imo) very wrong and giving people a very wrong opinion of the game and the mechanic. Come back with a valid reason why you're right and an answer to my comparison to models killing you instead of making you insignificant and then I'm happy to discuss it, but as it stands I can't see any substance to your argument.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

I still stand my ground on the previous though, you defend Bully working against insignificant by way of saying; yes, but you can resist the duel, or you can get rid of it by removing effects. You cannot resist being Ht1, and you can't get rid of it in any way (okay, growing would do it, but really, that's only tots), it's that inherent uselessness vs Hamelin that is the gamebreaker to me here, while you can try to counteract Insignificant, I'd like you to try counteracting Ht1.

The answer is not to take ht 1 models - I know that's a bit "basic" but it's the same as not taking Constructs against Hoffman. That said, this is why I'm so keen for bully not to affect Gremlins as that IS unfair imo. And let's not forget, Bully only stops ht1 targeting Hamelin - they can still do EVERYTHING else.

[Fetid Strumpet]

When challenged Fetid Strumpet seems to have no valid reason so resorts to personal slurs etc

Firstly, what personal slur did I resort to. If I'm guilty of this fact I assure you it was unintentional as I have a very great respect for you as a player, and from what little I know of you based solely on internet forum posts and interviews via the Gamers Lounge you seem to be a genuinely nice person. Saying that you are using fallacious logic in defense of your arguments is not a personal slur. Everyone at some point resorts to that sort of thing, even me. That is the purpose of discussion and argumentation, to have someone point out flaws in your own logic so you can re-examine your argument and either come up with a new way to support your proposed idea, or to point out the flaw, logically, in the supposed undermining of your point. If you are unable to do so, and in this instance I'm using a rhetorical you, not you, Magicpockets, personally, you either have to concede that your argument is unsound, or that you feel a certain way, but cannot justify your logic in a sound way. If I have used a personal slur, as you say I do, please link me a quote to it, and if it was, I will instantly apologize for it, as I have said that was not my intention. I would also hope that if such a slur is not found you would equally apologize for accusing me of resorting to such a tactic.

Fetid Stumpet has given no reasons other than "I don't like Bully"

Incorrect. I have stated that I don't like Bully. I have stated why, it destroys interactions between models, and once you have it there is no way to then go after the model that is handing it out. There fact that there is no escape clause is what I dislike about it. To my mind you are the one that is saying, "It is fine because I say it is. There are other broken Mechanics in the Game, so it's fine. You can still do other things, so its fine." Interesting. and what are those other things?

I can't interact with objectives, because I'm insignificant, a point I only bring up because you seem to think that because Bully only stops me from going after your master I am still able to do everything and is therefore fine. Your exact words were, if I'm finding the post correctly:

No, it ONLY stop you interacting with Hamelin - don;t give people the impression it's more than this.

The emphasis I must point out is mine. While it is true that Bully only stops me from targeting your master, that to me is a gigantic, huge, massive issue. My whole premise is that it stops interactions between models, and stopping interactions is one of the most massive issues for NPEs. The fact that with one duel you are safe from anything I can possibly do to you for the rest of the game is what my issue is.

This isn't only in relation to killing you, this is also in relation to everything else a model wants to do to have any influence on the game. I can't try to stop you from moving up the board to get at something else of mine with a disengaging strike. I can't debuff you to prevent you from easily being able to do the same to my other models. I can't stop you from interacting with objectives I am guarding, because if I can't target you I can't be engaged in combat with you, and so therefore cannot stop your interact actions.

Add to this fact I can't successfully kill your crew, because rats just come back, and so do rat catchers.

So what you are essentially say is that if there is something that won't just easily come back with no effort, I can go after them and everything is ok?

Have you not noticed Hamelin SUCKS at dealing damage from range and even his melee attack is a double edged sword? He takes you out via insignificant rather than killing you.

I believe I have stated that I do not have very much experience playing against Hamelin, so I will have to honestly say no, I have not noticed that Hamelin sucks from Range and that his Melee attack is a double edged sword... and my response is... So what? Seamus is also bad at ranged, and bad at melee combat, should Seamus then also have the Bully ability to go along with his Insignificant trigger? This in both cases, both Hamelin's ability in ranged and Melee combat, and my own example of Seamus, are totally irrelevant. How they fair in other aspects of the game has no bearing on whether there should be an ability that prevents targeting 100%. I argue, no, there shouldn't be.

Where have I said this?

My impression, which could be wrong, is based on your comments as relating to Levis ability to 1 or two shot a model, and Colette's almost impossible to kill abilities. You brought them up in a response to my assertion that an ability which outright prevents a target was fair because look at these abilities on other models, they are super strong, and that the comparison you were hoping to make, I assume, was that therefore Bully was totally fair. I will admit, *I* used the term broken and not you, so perhaps we should change the terminology to just unfair. The fact that there are other "unfair" elements in the game, and I'll say I'm not taking sides on the Colette/Levi issues, just for the record, does not in anyway invalidate the argument that Bully is unfair.

This is the logical fallacy of an Appeal to a Common Practice. Just because there are many unfair abilities in the game in no way renders Bully fair.

I'm not upset for my sake, I'm just annoyed because you're (imo) very wrong and giving people a very wrong opinion of the game and the mechanic. Come back with a valid reason why you're right and an answer to my comparison to models killing you instead of making you insignificant and then I'm happy to discuss it, but as it stands I can't see any substance to your argument.

As this is a personal opinion statement there is no counter argument to it. I equally feel, IMO, that you are wrong and giving people a very wrong opinion of the game and it's mechanics. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. As to your appeal to come back with a logical argument, I feel I have. If you can't see substance to the argument I would like to know what fallacy I'm guilty of because I'll at least admit that is certainly possible that I'm guilty of such a thing.

The answer is not to take ht 1 models - I know that's a bit "basic" but it's the same as not taking Constructs against Hoffman. That said, this is why I'm so keen for bully not to affect Gremlins as that IS unfair imo. And let's not forget, Bully only stops ht1 targeting Hamelin - they can still do EVERYTHING else.

I would argue firstly, and I know we've been over this ground before, that you aren't going to know you are facing Hamelin, according to the rules. According to the rules all I will know is your faction, so is your argument that no one should ever use Ht 1 models anytime their opponent declares they are playing Outcasts? Also your willingness to admit that Bully is unfair to Gremlins I think makes my point. There should be some way of getting around the mechanic, even if it is hard to do, as just shutting options down is not fun.

Frankly, and this is the opinion of one who again will admit to not playing Hamelin, changing Bully to either needing a target number of 13 or above, or an opposed duel would actually be good for Hamelin because it would be another possible duel they would cheat on, and therefore more opportunity to draw cards. The opponent wouldn't feel like their model was just shut down, and Hamelin would have more opportunity to draw cards.

Anyway, that aside I eagerly look forward to continuing a civil discussion with you Magicpockets.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Fetid Strumpet

[ZiggyQubert]

I believe I have stated that I do not have very much experience playing against Hamelin, so I will have to honestly say no, I have not noticed that Hamelin sucks from Range and that his Melee attack is a double edged sword...

So you dont have experience with hamelin so you cant form an opinion of how his combat and ranged abilities are but you can form an opinion of how powerfull bully is (without any experience)

As this is a personal opinion statement there is no counter argument to it. I equally feel, IMO, that you are wrong and giving people a very wrong opinion of the game and it's mechanics. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. As to your appeal to come back with a logical argument, I feel I have. If you can't see substance to the argument I would like to know what fallacy I'm guilty of because I'll at least admit that is certainly possible that I'm guilty of such a thing.

So you have an opinion (and have no experience with the rules in question) and magicpockets has another opinion (and lots of experience with the rules in question) and yet you think that your opinion is the more relevent of the two. I have to say go get some experience with/against hamelin then you will be in an position to have an informed opinion.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Out of curiosity, why would I need to get experience with Hamelin in order to understand the design behind a single Rules mechanic that I have an issue with? I keep saying my issue isn't with Hamelin, it is with a single rules mechanic he currently has. The mechanic is a mechanic that bears similarity to Pitiful, Irresistible, and Harmless, and has issues relating to interactions within the game. If someone has an understanding of how the mechanics of the game works then they are competent to comment on the design of those mechanics.

From a design standpoint I am not in favor of any ability in the game that imposes a condition which affects targeting for which there is no escape clause, period.

Abilities which rob control of your character heavily favor Negative play experiences. These are the conditions and abilities across every game system I've played that result in negative play experiences. Fear in D&D before 3.5 was a great example. Once your character was affected by it you lost control of your character for a set amount of time, it didn't matter that you got an initial save, once you were affected there was absolutely nothing you could do about it but suffer through the multiple round effects. It was not fun. As much as I wasn't a fan of the reissue of 3.5 and am not a fan of 4th, I feel that the redesign of fear was a step in the right direction. The designers changed it so that every round you got a chance to break free of fear and regain control of your character. That was huge, because even though initially it wasn't likely you'd get free, you had the chance, and that makes all the difference. If Bully only affected you for the round you got smacked fine then, or if it imposed a status that required you to test against a number or did a WP duel to target, also no problem, but an effect which prevents me from controlling my character for the rest of the game in the manner I want, for which there is nothing I can do about, that I have an issue with.

I don't care if on Hamelin you can argue point 1 and point 2 and point 3 and he's balanced because of point 4. My issue, once again, is not with Hamelin because I don't feel knowledgeable to discuss his mechanics as a whole in a meaningful or constructive way. Bully is an ability that affects targeting, and as an ability that offers no escape clause is one I feel I have every right, and the knowledge to back up my opinions on. Any ability that imposes a status condition that prevents targeting,and thus controlling my character in a manner I wish, is, if not bad design, at the very least not good, and leads to bad experiences with the game.

[Dumb Luck]

Bully not effecting Gremlins.

I am okay with this.

[Guy in Suit]

Wow Fetid, way to show your true colors.

Bully just shouldn't affect height 1, otherwise its fine. If you hire an insig model - you know that trait is a downer going in anyway. If Hammy makes you insignificant - he spent considerable resources and you got a resist.

The biggest problem is just the effectiveness of the whole schtick - my favorite is limiting the range within which rats spawn infinitely to 4" - really good idea. Closing the infinite rat activation loophole is great too.

I also see no reason rats should be able to claim objectives so easily by turning into a catcher and using 1AP.

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

Also, I'd be fine leave the double + as it is on the rats - just take away nimble.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Guy in Suit

[Ozz]

They are not fast, they are instinctual and have a 0 to take a WD and move to a rat within 5"

And removing that would make them fairly useless even with crazy re spawns they are capable of getting if you try for it.

Also something to remember when reading Fetid and Magics posts is they are arguing the same topic with a different goal in mind from the looks of it.

As far as i can see, Magic wants Hamelin to lose the potential negative play experience that you can get when playing against him, though if you bother to learn what he can do, he is apparently easy to counter. (not saying that is wrong, just i have not learnt Hamelin myself yet, and so do not understand how to counter him well) I just kill rat catchers if i can and leave it at that, then go for what i need as rats should then become spread out and alone or die till they fine hamelin and he becomes slow to keep them alive or they die.

And again as far as i can tell, Fetid wants anything that just gets you and says NO to not exist as it is an un fun mechanic to face. Which currently bully does to you, and Hamelin has an ability (all be it expensive to cast) to make it affect you, therefore making the initial ability worse to face.

Basically this post is just to say before arguing so bluntly against someone's comment remember their goal for why, it changes the way things are seen. (weather I'm right in what i think they are both arguing about or not)

[Guy in Suit]

Well I agree, Bully as written is no fun because Ht 1 models just get utterly boned. But if Hammy spends the AP and likely stones to make it affect you - how is it different than Levi in the same situation just nuking you outright, as Senor Pockets said?

Bully needs to be changed, but the fact that once you are affect you cannot really retaliate is hard from broken on its face. Many models can even shrug off the effects!

[Issalbotproto]

I would like to request this thread be moved to general discussion as this thread has nothing to do with rules questions

[Omenbringer]

Gremlins: Som'er actually is a pretty good matchup, giving the number of irresitable amounts of Dg you can do, not to mention superb discard mechanisms, ophelia is as is hosed though.

The irresistable damage potential in the Gremlin Crew is a good start however is easily countered by base blocking with Rats. It is possible to protect Hamelin from any melee strike or Aura/ Pulse with a range of 2" or less with only 6 Malifaux Rats).

As far as i can see, Magic wants Hamelin to lose the potential negative play experience that you can get when playing against him, though if you bother to learn what he can do, he is apparently easy to counter. (not saying that is wrong, just i have not learnt Hamelin myself yet, and so do not understand how to counter him well)

It is definately a simple thing to consistently beat Hamelin but learning his tricks definately helps a lot. The big problem with Hamelin (and a few others) is that you dont really play the normal game, you have build and play to counter them.

perhaps change bully to the following:

Bully: Ht 1 models targetting this model receive :-fate on all duels targetting this model.

it means that Bully is still very effective in limiting what can be done, but it also means that there is still *some* chance of overcoming it.

This could work but I would reduce the negative to only vice the suggested 2 so it isn't quite as dominating. This way the negative could be overcome with a Focused or Chaneled action. A double negative fate flip would be a bit to good on a model with a Df of 5 that also has 12 Wds, a few easy methods of giving himself positive flips for defense and of course the ability to respawn (via the hidden/ protected the Stolen in the back field).

[Adanedhel]

You call it baseblocking, I call it making yourself ready for getting Focussed Shot and getting blasts out of Hamelin, another thing Som'er does quite well, not to mention that a 3" pulse is hard to baseblock with only six models, I'll need try it out I think

[magicpockets]

My last words on the Bully debate with Fetid Stumpet (depending on a reply obviously) -

1. First no were have you answered my point about facing Bully being better than being dead, and that having limits placed on the use of your character is better than them just being killed - especially as you can remove/get around bully but you'll struggle to remove/get around being dead. For example -

From a design standpoint I am not in favor of any ability in the game that imposes a condition which affects targeting for which there is no escape clause, period.

So, you're against models being killed then?

2. I've now realised that you don't see Malifaux in the same way - or the issue of Hamelin in the same way as me. I like the diversity of the Masters and abilities in Malifaux whereas you seem to want to reduce every crew to being a differently dressed up variant of the exact same thing (evident from you justifying Hamelin being "broken" by saying my comparisons to unique play-styles of other masters are unfair as they're also broken). That means whereas I'm coming at that from "let's try and balance very diverse Masters so that players with different game styles can have a fair fight" you seem to be coming at it from "let's try and get rid of every ability which is different or unusual and make the crews vanilla". To me that's not what Malifaux is about

3. As for crew selection, I agree there's an issue that you don't know which master your opponent is taking, but that cuts both ways - you declare Neverborn and I have to build my crew based on the very different play-styles of the potential Masters and minions I'd be facing. So my advice is - if you're opponent declares Outcasts as their faction - look at the strategy they've got, consider their play history, think about what models they own - and build your crew accordingly. If you take a load of ht1 models against an Outcast opponent when you don;t know which Master they'll be taking, really that's your own fault.

[Adanedhel]

but magicpockets, there are list which make extensive use of Ht1 models, Collodi and Ramos being prime examples, so your advice is, if you play them vs outcasts you're hosed?

And more or less, you can prepare for the other factions, because in general similar weapons will help against the different masters, Guild will always be about pumping loads of damage, Arcanists will always have a deal of spellcasting to counteract (even Marcus' wild heart), Ressers will generaly have lowish defense, but make up for it with defensive tricks ala HtW, Spirit,..., Neverborn will always be amazingly fast but with very few acces to ranged Dg.

With Outcast though, I'm not sure wether there is any semblance on a strategy against them, and there the Ht1 modifier vs Bully hurts, for Ht1 models with meleefocus are brilliant vs Kin (unless this somehow is part of the balancing behing Aim High, but I doubt that.

So either vs Outcast you have no idea what you're up against, or you're playing with limited pools, in which case Ramos, Collodi, Ophelia just don't have what it takes to adapt to fighting Hamelin.

Also being Ht1 indeed goes against having a chance within Bully, while his Insignificant attempts can be resisted, or Insignificant can be get rid off.

The reason crewhiring is very hard vs Hamelin is because the Outcastfaction is so immensly varied, and what work vs Hamelin does not neccesarily work vs others, Jack Daw being the most important example: Brilliant vs Ophelia and Hamelin, sucks vs Levi, Vikks, and Som'er.

Your neverbornexample is flawed, because there are lots of things that most lists have in common; Lelu/Lilitu, Stitcheds, Insideous Madness, Doppelganger all models which are quite prevalent. Arcanist are most varied, but anticast is something that works against them all. Just call me one thing in playstyle shared by all Outcasts?

With exception of FS noone said that being affected by Bully is wors than death, but that does not automatically make it a good thing

[Fetid Strumpet]

Magicpockets, if you are tired of the debate I am certainly happy to put it down. I'm sorry if you are no longer interested in the topic as overall I enjoy looking at things from other players points of view, even if I don't agree with them.

Before I get into my final responses I'm still interested if you could please quote the post where I slurred you? It has been bothering me, as I generally try to be as polite, if steady to my opinions, as possible, and it disturbs me that I might have descended to that level. I couldn't find anything skimming through the posts again. Could you provide a link please?

1: Bully being better than being dead. Well it really depends on how you are characterizing "better". If you are looking at it in a strictly black and white, no emotion or fun attached cost/benefit type of thing, than certainly I'll concede that in an objective sense being "alive" is theoretically better than being dead... however,...

That being said, I would argue that it is not so simple an equation as Dead=Bad, Alive=Good. The first thing I need to clarify before we go into the crux of my argument is that you have once again mischaracterized my argument. I don't have any idea if HAMELIN is broken. I've played against him so very little that I have no data to support my conclusions. The only thing I can say about Hamelin in totality, and have any reasonable ability to justify is that, played well, Hamelin seems to represent one of the larger NPE masters in the game. I have no justification on how that relates to his power level. I will point out that it is entirely possible to be perfectly balanced, and yet be bad for the game as a whole purely because of how unfun it is to play against. I again can't say for certain, I just wanted to leave you with that thought. Anyway,...

My argument is against one, single, specific mechanic that Hamelin possesses. From a standpoint of what is good for the game I would argue that if Hamelin's mechanics just killed you it would be better for the game and a better design. Now before you throw your hands up and dismiss everything I say as nonsense, please remember that from a strictly, unemotional standpoint I have admitted that Being alive is better than being dead, but if we take all emotion out of the game we might as well not play it, because the only reason any of us actually spend time with this game is because we enjoy it, and that basically is where my issues with Bully comes in.

Things that flat out kill you in this game are far easier to balance than the subtleties of other interactions. I will draw on your example of Leveticus' ability to 1 or 2 shot a model to death heavily for the rest of these examples, as it was an example you brought up. Leveticus can theoretically easily kill any model in the game with one hit, as his severe dmg is 12 and he has a resource intensive way to make certain that he is able to cheat a severe dmg card in to take advantage of his severe dmg.

Leveticus is actually a good example to examine because of the way he is designed. It is not easy for Leveticus to actually get at the model he wants to punch. He has a walk of 3, add the sort of free nimble walk he has via Necrotic Sacrifice and Leveticus has a 7" threat range for his punch. I also don't see any massive movement Shennanigans that he has access to outside of his coming back to life via a waif. (If he does have them please forgive me as no one in my area currently plays a dedicated Leveticus so I'm not 100% solid on how he exactly works) So right there we have interactions of positioning vs an opponent. Leveticus wants to kill something, he has to get to it, and it is never going to be a surprise that he suddenly pops up out of no where and punches you in the face a la old style Chompy. Next he has to hit you, which with a Cb of 5 is a dicey prospect of actually landing the blow without resorting to SS. Next he hits and has to use cards from hand to make certain he can cheat the flip, or to use the Severe dmg card he has on top of the deck via Death's Lessons. Once all that is complete he needs to get past any defensive triggers or abilities you might have, then you take dmg, which overall will probably kill you. Throughout this whole exchange the players have been involved in a dance of activations. Leveticus does these things to get into position for the kill, I position incorrectly, Leveticus comes in for the kill, I fail my Duels, Leveticus expends resources, I die. I would argue that the finality of this state, and the dance of interactions that lead us to it is far less of a NPE, than if Leveticus just had to hit me and I could never do anything to him again, and there is nothing I could do about it. Being alive but not being able to do what I want creates a feeling of helplessness and futility that is not conducive to a fun experience at the table. The expectation that models are going to die coming into the game, and the fact that there was a dedicated series of interactions that lead to it makes it more fun to deal with than Bully does. You yourself said that Hamelin doesn't kill you, his mechanic is to leave you alive and useless, although I'll admit I'm paraphrasing the final bit of that sentence as I don't remember the exact statement. If I'm misrepresenting your point please correct me.

Now if Leveticus were able to kill models at will, anywhere on the table, and be free from reprisal then again it would be a bad design issue, and one that would need to be corrected, because again it would deny the dance of interactions that make Malifaux such a great game.

That at base is my issue with Bully, it deny's interactions, it is a flat "NO" in the rules of the game, that contributes to a larger NPE than if Hamelin didn't have that ability, but something else that just did enough dmg to kill models, because control, while fun for the player exorcising it, is almost always less fun to the player experiencing it. An example of this could be seen in Magic the Gathering, which the last time I played was in the mid 90's so if it has changed since then please remember my example is from the early days. Let's examine the colors Red and Blue. Red did direct dmg, and was the color of big scary high dmg creatures. Blue was the color of control, the color of manipulation, and plinks of dmg. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree that blue was the strongest color in those days, but worse I remember it being the most unfun type of cards to play against, bar none. Red had a simplicity to it, that because of expectations was always looked at as strong, but rarely had the NPE associtated with it that a blue control deck did.

Now, understanding that, and looking at my examples I can see why you might come to the conclusion that I want Malifaux to be a variant of exactly the same thing dressed up differently. I would argue that is not the case. I favor control being in the game as it is a valid avenue of game design that should exist in the game. But, I passionately believe in making the game fun, and control abilities that are not common to every single player, such as killing a model, that imposes control effects on models should always have some way around it. Paralyze and Falling back, as disliked as they are only affect you for one turn, they don't render your model obsolete but alive for the rest of the game. Bully flat out states if you are one of these two things you can't interact with me of your own volition ever, period. That is not fun.

Also I'd like to clarify that if I gave the impression that I was arguing that Leveticus' death touch, or Colette's hard to kill status were actually unfair, as the term I used, I'd like to state that was not the case. I take no stand on those issues currently. I was simply using them as you had brought them up earlier in the fallacy of an Appeal to Common Practice, I.E. Bully may be unfair, but look at all these other abilities, they are also unfair, so Bully is ok. The existence or non existence of other unfair abilities in the game, if there are such, has no relevance on whether the mechanics of another ability is itself unfair.

As for your third point, I feel you weaken your own argument here. You have stated that you don't feel it's fair that Gremlins take an auto lose pretty much to Hamelin, which according to your own arguments Bully shouldn't have any bearing on, since their models can do everything else in the game and being unable to go after one model shouldn't affect this, but if you are honestly being consistent in your beliefs then your recommendation should be that in a tournament an outcast player should never select Gremlins to be their crew if they don't know who their outcast opponent is. An Outcast player has other options than bringing Gremlins so if they bring them and their opponent happens to be Hamelin, too bad.

In closing my view on Bully is that the mechanics of how it works in the game, irrespective of how justified certain individuals may or may not feel about it, is an example of an ability that should not exist in its current form because it offers nothing to the game except NPE, as there is no escape clause. I'm 100% in favor of a flavorful ability that make a model hard to get at be certain groups of models, but feel that should a clutch moment arrive and the player is willing to expend the resources to do it, there should be a way around any condition on models still in the game that are permanent effects. I feel from a design standpoint it would only improve the game.

My modest suggestion, to get back to the topic at had, would be that Bully should be a simple Wp Duel vs 14 for the effected groups of models.

On a final personal note to Magicpockets, I would hope that here at the end of the debate you hold no hard feelings, as aside from my discomfort that I may have inadvertently made a personal attack on you, I hold no ill will towards you. If you are ever in the states in my area I'd be happy to by you a drink for the interesting conversation we have had. I think I would agree that we see the game differently, but I would characterize the disagreement as one of design philosophy. I feel that no ability in the game should 100% close off options, you feel that abilities that 100% close off options are permissible and should be part of the game. We will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Good Luck to you.

[magicpockets]

No hard feelings at all, I'm one of the thickest skinned people on here and love a good debate - don't ever worry about "offending" me

I think there's a couple of gaps in how we see things which are leading to our clash on views, notably how Hamelin plays - you can't get a feel for the balance of bully in a game unless you know this. On paper Bully seems OP/unfair but in practice it's actually what Hamelin does instead of killing you (well, I play him to kill stuff instead of make it insignificant - but that's a whole different discussion about the best way to play him)

Re Leveticus, I wasn't referencing his melee attack but his 2AP combination that can kill any 9wd model and bag him an SPA from 12" (iirc). I think it's a good comparison with Bully as it shows how the talents are different but still balance - for example Hamelin can achieve his "cuddle" of your model in 1AP, but it requires him sacrificing one of his own models, the effect can be removed, and only limits a couple of aspects of your model's behaviour. Levi needs 2AP but can kill you (ignoring armour as well), from which you have no come back and no further functionality.

That said, you understand my point and I think what's really the issue here is that you don't like effects like Bully -

Being alive but not being able to do what I want creates a feeling of helplessness and futility that is not conducive to a fun experience at the table.

However, whilst I accept your opinion, just because you don't "like" it doesn't mean it's either broken or in need of an errata.

As for your third point, I feel you weaken your own argument here. You have stated that you don't feel it's fair that Gremlins take an auto lose pretty much to Hamelin, which according to your own arguments Bully shouldn't have any bearing on, since their models can do everything else in the game and being unable to go after one model shouldn't affect this, but if you are honestly being consistent in your beliefs then your recommendation should be that in a tournament an outcast player should never select Gremlins to be their crew if they don't know who their outcast opponent is. An Outcast player has other options than bringing Gremlins so if they bring them and their opponent happens to be Hamelin, too bad.

I'm not sure what your point is here because I agree with everything you've said. For me, Gremlin's facing an auto-cuddle isn't fair - they have so few model choices which aren't ht1 that they can't do anything about Bully. That said, in the current iteration of the rules, if you take Gremlins against an unknown Outcast Master and you get Hamelin, that's your own fault. Same as if you take constructs against an unknown Guild Master and pull Hoffman - you're in for some bad times ahead.

Re Adanedhel's post, I understand what you're saying about Collodi and Ramos, but -

1. It's different to Gremlins as you "can" take models which aren't ht1

2. Malifaux is faction:faction so you don't have to take Collodi or Ramos against an unknown Outcast Master - same as with taking Gremlins

That said, I'm way ahead of you and it's why I think Bully should be affected the same way as his hiring restrictions (rather than just not affecting Gremlins as has been suggested in the past). By making it Gremlins, Constructs and Leaders you avoid both Ramos and Collodi being affected unduly by Hamelin's Bully with their "usual" play-style.

To be honest guys (whilst I'm not precluding Fetid's right to reply obviously) I think we've done this Bully thing to death!

[Gentleman J]

Seems like any Neverborn player who's worried about Understand The Soulless+Bully need only pack a Doppleganger to Mimic Nihilism. Sorry if that seems blindingly obvious to everyone, it just struck me as a very simple demonstration of how Hammelin can be handled if you put some thought into it.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Very clever idea, honestly. Don't know how effective it would be as you would have to have your doppleganger get within 8" of Nix or Hamelin, and remain alive.

[Omenbringer]

Clever it might be but it also has to be re-done every turn and if the Doppleganger is made Insignificant it wont be able to target Hamelin for Mimic at all.

It might be possible to set up an Assasination run with it but it would be horribly telegraphed, relatively fragile and not likely to work more than once on the same Hamelin player.

[Gentleman J]

Well, if you know you've got the option, its down to tactics to be sure to hit Hammy with everything you've got. Mostly the point was that Hammy plays differently but that's not necessarily bad. Take Hammy and Nix out and the entire rest of his army (more or less) goes Insignifcant.

On the game design side, guys like Hammy and Pandora are cool because they allow for a different style of games than a pair of shooty Masters or melee Masters. On a player side it can seem frustrating but its really just a matter of understanding their schtick and adjusting tactics the same way you do for Perdita vs The Viks.

[Omenbringer]

Take Hammy and Nix out and the entire rest of his army (more or less) goes Insignifcant

This of course is the main problem, neither of them are exactly easy to kill (Hamelin especially).

On a player side it can seem frustrating but its really just a matter of understanding their schtick.

Most of the players that are recommending fixes for Hamelin are real familiar with his Schtick.

Additionally this isn't a new thing (like a lot of the flavor of the month "OMG this is such a Broken Combo" threads that pop up), Magicpockets and others (myself included) have been petitioning for fixes for a long time (pretty much since he was released).