2 and 6 threat are the most game warping models. Some factions struggle to hold wide rosters due to expensive leaders and no in faction 2 threats. AMG seems to not want to make more 2s because they are so universally useful. If 2s and 6s got a LOYAL trait that only allowed them to be fielded in teams aligned to their factions, it would hopefully make space for more designs that would not have as much wide impact.
I wouldn't mind if they implemented something like this, but I think that AMG would feel iffy about making it a core rule. I agree that the existence of these models invalidates a lot of other models, but optically it looks bad to admit that 6+ threats are inherently unbalanced. Honestly, I'd settle for them just pulling the Dormammu card more often. Thematically a lot of these characters would refuse to work outside their affiliations, so I think it's fine slapping a "only works in X affiliations" or "must be your leader" on more character sheets. There's also more subtle ways they can discourage splashing things everywhere. They can tie core abilities to affiliated tactics cards, or just toggle abilities on and off depending on the affiliation/other characters you bring. I'd like to see them explore more design space in limiting powerful units without directly nerfing their cards themselves. They could even do things like "CHARACTER gets one buff under these affiliations but gets a different buff under other affiliations."
I'll leave my comment here for the algorithm. First off, removing the ability to splash these models goes against the spirit of the game in my opinion. Secondly, Hulk and Thanos are the only ones here who can be argued that they have issues. In Hulk's case, I think he's an issue with the current crises in the game. If map E, single extracts (researcher), and stackable extracts (hammers/cubes/virus) didn't exist, he would not be an issue. Why? Hulk's value is in being a tanky bully who collects extracts that require you to run a steal (very popular) or kill him to get back. If you increase the amount of VPs per model on the table, his value goes down. In Thanos' case, his power budget/kit is not spent on his leadership which makes him a balancing nightmare because all it takes is some random synergy or new rule to break him again. AMG needs to think about putting some of his power budget into his leadership, my suggestions are paying for gems, or better yet, having gems at all.
Good point about the crises playing a role here. I hadn’t considered that too hard. I’d prefer Thanos to still feel ultra powerful, I just don’t want to see him all the time. I don’t want an unplayable Thanos, just a reasonable one
I think that affiliations reduced to being a "shell" for a centerpiece model is more contrary to the spirit of the game (which is obviously a subjective thing in the first place). I really like Syndicate Gaming's proposed change.
This is an interesting take on attempting to fix the kaiju problem. I agree that Hulk is too strong. I don't think Thanos is quite as strong as Hulk. One misplay on Thanos or over extension can cause Thanos to get dazed. He is 3/3/3 with damage reduction. I have dazed a fully healthy Thanos out in one turn multiple times and have lost my Thanos multiple times due to over extension. It is much harder to answer Hulk in the same way. On its face, it seems a little heavy handed to restrict roster building in this way. Being very precise with balance changes is a more nuanced way to solve the problem. Malekith was a problem, and he got nerfed. CGR was a problem and got nerfed. To me, I think AMG should look at Hulk and dial him back just a little bit. Maybe just making his throw cost 3 or 4. Or make his inner rage generate 1 power extra instead of 2. Something that dials his kit back just a little. I think what the Hulk can do all by himself in one turn is the actual problem, not 6+ threat boys across the game. But that is just my two cents. Also a question about your idea. How would this affect leaders like Emma Frost and Dormamu? Would they still be allowed to run the big boys?
@@Kaylubdee I would still keep 6+ out of dormammu, Emma, and now probably Dracula. I think it would just allow the designers to be more aggressive with the leaderships
I think this is a bad take for game diversity. If you limited hulk to avengers or defenders and no splashes, you'd just see a lot more avengers and defenders and a lot less of anything else, at a competitive level. Allowing splashes means that people are able to pick the affiliation they want to play and it means that people do. A better plan would be to shift some power. Nerf the character themselves a little bit, but give the power back in a form of a TTC for the affiliation that you want them to remain strong in. But I think it's more that the Hulks and Thanos are the only 6+ characters that can pull their weight for their threat value. Magneto is a good example that you brought up. He's a 6 health 6 threat that can just be kind of caught with his pants down defensively. Some of the older high threat characters just need kind of need to be buffed at this point or they aren't going to see play anyways, but Hulk could almost definitely use some toning down.
So what I’m hearing is the hulk, the literal strongest being in the marvel universe, is too strong, and thanos takes on the avengers casually most weekends is stronger than 2-3 avengers characters. Hmmm Nerfing them removes the joy of taking them, if anything just make them 7 threat. Make it a bit riskier to take them but don’t make them worse. The hulk is designed to wreck people it’s why you take the hulk, you want to see him throwing buildings and punching people so hard their models break
I think Hulk and Thanos are the only models in that list that are warping the game state right now. I think this is an interesting option to help fix it. I don't hate the idea, but I don't know that this change alone would be enough. I have seen several black order players recently in the TTS league dumpster people and avengers with hulk is still scary. I think toning down those two models is a more likely solution, but there could be a combination of both. What are your thoughts on taking 6+ in unaffiliated? I saw several Thanos unaffiliated lists that were slapping as they took the reroll all models and death's decree made them hit like trains.
I wasn’t aware of just unaffiliated Thanos squads. If that’s happening, then the character is just too strong. Thanos with a leadership should always be better than unaffiliated imo
There’s a lot more I disagree with than I can list here… but I think the proper solution would be to just fix the 2 problem Kaiju models (Hulk and Thanos) rather than limit the list building of the game. I can *maybe* see an argument for Thanos, but it’s just as much a Gem problem as a him problem. Back when Gems took Character Slots he wasn’t splashed to a significant degree he actually got *significantly* buffed when they did that, and unrestricting Space and Reality was also a huge buff to him when they gave him his only nerf. They reigned in CGR and Mal and now they’re not issues, Hulk and Thanos aren’t any different. I also think your list of characters “Dumpstered” is flawed and also incorrect. 2-4 threat models shouldn’t be solo’ing him, but having 2 gang up on him is a great way to deal with him. You’ve also got multiple models who are support models who should never be interacting with him, and also listed models with GREAT tools to deal with high threat models in the list.
I was trying to make a point that there has basically always been an overbearing 6+ threat in the game’s existence. And instead of waiting for nerfs, just contain them to 1 or 2 affiliations. It’s easier to game plan for a Hulk in Avengers than Hulk in 25 affiliations. As far as that list goes, it was a quick thing I did to get an idea of what may be pushed out by Hulk. It’s not meant to be accurate or exhaustive
As a dorm player I approve of this change 😎 But in seriousness, I do like the idea. A problem that is indirectly stated in this video, and many of the comments, is very often 6+ characters are not worth their threat value, either on release or after balancing. I got into this game because of Dorm and Hulkbuster, and they never feel their weight when I put them on the table (unless I play them together). So not only do we have oppressive 6+ splashes, but we have a lot of 6+ paperweights that, in the grand scheme of things, often cost you the extra activation if you brought 2 characters instead without getting the value of 2 activations. As you said, balancing these characters around the leaderships they are affiliated to use could fix this balance problem, and allow more diverse rosters instead of strong model+counter to other strong models+people you actually enjoy/want to play. Alternatively, it could just end up with everyone playing Hellfire Club.
I think this is a very interesting idea, and I do welcome some 6+ threat twerking ( thanos is still a major issue) how would this work with OG Strange, Maw and Namor that become 6 Threat when they are loaded with a gem ?
This is interesting. As in my meta, The big boi threat has gone down significantly. They are no longer defining Our meta at least, not like the super tier affiliations like hfc, Wakanda, Webs etc. Hulk just gets Destroyed. Thanos Cabal sure is a scary list but its nothing like gotg+CGR was before nerfs. I dont see a need for nerfs, there are antibigboy tech available and they have introduced more of it lately. Just by looking at the win percentages, hulk list dont look like a problem anymore? Also restricting 6+ threats only to their affiliations.. No-fun move Banner :(
Agreed. I'm a casual player and i always ask if people want to use the big boys or not, for i think they can take a big part of the fun of the game and restrict a lot of pieces (not an real issue, but trying new pieces and lists is always nice). In tournaments, they should absolutely do this. Also, this could make AMG release new bigger threat characters to the otther affiliations.
idk i think i disagree. A Hulk nerf prolly better. Maybe give him a flip side but add immunity to stagger and bleed. also back load him. 9/11 for stamina. idk something like that
@@SyndicateGamingNerdsit's been a mixed bag. The min/max meta chasers, were largely negative at first. They gave it a chance playing with the house rules. The compromise was, allowing competitive lists if their opponent agrees. Most of them came around and have been enjoying the more active community. The last one, doesn't seem to understand why people don't want to play optimized lists. I completely understand them, way more than i care to admit. An incident made me realize I needed to quit competitive gaming. So I started focusing on fun first and teaching other people. Our solution was keeping our problem child playing against the twelve competitive friendly club members. On the other side our more casual minded players that just want to play their faction, plus a splash or two. Have been very happy. The group went from 36 players right after lock downs. Down to 14 regular players before the house rule. Post house rule we have slowly gotten back upto 30 regular players. Even my murder hobo arse, with my black order only has one 6 plus threat in list and I don't take Thanos with more than one gem. That I randomly roll for before the game.
2 and 6 threat are the most game warping models. Some factions struggle to hold wide rosters due to expensive leaders and no in faction 2 threats.
AMG seems to not want to make more 2s because they are so universally useful.
If 2s and 6s got a LOYAL trait that only allowed them to be fielded in teams aligned to their factions, it would hopefully make space for more designs that would not have as much wide impact.
I wouldn't mind if they implemented something like this, but I think that AMG would feel iffy about making it a core rule. I agree that the existence of these models invalidates a lot of other models, but optically it looks bad to admit that 6+ threats are inherently unbalanced.
Honestly, I'd settle for them just pulling the Dormammu card more often. Thematically a lot of these characters would refuse to work outside their affiliations, so I think it's fine slapping a "only works in X affiliations" or "must be your leader" on more character sheets. There's also more subtle ways they can discourage splashing things everywhere. They can tie core abilities to affiliated tactics cards, or just toggle abilities on and off depending on the affiliation/other characters you bring. I'd like to see them explore more design space in limiting powerful units without directly nerfing their cards themselves.
They could even do things like "CHARACTER gets one buff under these affiliations but gets a different buff under other affiliations."
I'll leave my comment here for the algorithm. First off, removing the ability to splash these models goes against the spirit of the game in my opinion. Secondly, Hulk and Thanos are the only ones here who can be argued that they have issues.
In Hulk's case, I think he's an issue with the current crises in the game. If map E, single extracts (researcher), and stackable extracts (hammers/cubes/virus) didn't exist, he would not be an issue. Why? Hulk's value is in being a tanky bully who collects extracts that require you to run a steal (very popular) or kill him to get back. If you increase the amount of VPs per model on the table, his value goes down.
In Thanos' case, his power budget/kit is not spent on his leadership which makes him a balancing nightmare because all it takes is some random synergy or new rule to break him again. AMG needs to think about putting some of his power budget into his leadership, my suggestions are paying for gems, or better yet, having gems at all.
Good point about the crises playing a role here. I hadn’t considered that too hard.
I’d prefer Thanos to still feel ultra powerful, I just don’t want to see him all the time. I don’t want an unplayable Thanos, just a reasonable one
I think that affiliations reduced to being a "shell" for a centerpiece model is more contrary to the spirit of the game (which is obviously a subjective thing in the first place). I really like Syndicate Gaming's proposed change.
Differentiating casual vs. tournament rules would be awesome
This is an interesting take on attempting to fix the kaiju problem. I agree that Hulk is too strong. I don't think Thanos is quite as strong as Hulk. One misplay on Thanos or over extension can cause Thanos to get dazed. He is 3/3/3 with damage reduction. I have dazed a fully healthy Thanos out in one turn multiple times and have lost my Thanos multiple times due to over extension. It is much harder to answer Hulk in the same way.
On its face, it seems a little heavy handed to restrict roster building in this way. Being very precise with balance changes is a more nuanced way to solve the problem. Malekith was a problem, and he got nerfed. CGR was a problem and got nerfed. To me, I think AMG should look at Hulk and dial him back just a little bit. Maybe just making his throw cost 3 or 4. Or make his inner rage generate 1 power extra instead of 2. Something that dials his kit back just a little. I think what the Hulk can do all by himself in one turn is the actual problem, not 6+ threat boys across the game. But that is just my two cents.
Also a question about your idea. How would this affect leaders like Emma Frost and Dormamu? Would they still be allowed to run the big boys?
@@Kaylubdee I would still keep 6+ out of dormammu, Emma, and now probably Dracula. I think it would just allow the designers to be more aggressive with the leaderships
Imo one of the bigger squeezes to roster building is how amg is allergic to 2 threats. Everything they release now feels 4+ with the occasional 3.
I think this is a bad take for game diversity. If you limited hulk to avengers or defenders and no splashes, you'd just see a lot more avengers and defenders and a lot less of anything else, at a competitive level. Allowing splashes means that people are able to pick the affiliation they want to play and it means that people do.
A better plan would be to shift some power. Nerf the character themselves a little bit, but give the power back in a form of a TTC for the affiliation that you want them to remain strong in.
But I think it's more that the Hulks and Thanos are the only 6+ characters that can pull their weight for their threat value. Magneto is a good example that you brought up. He's a 6 health 6 threat that can just be kind of caught with his pants down defensively. Some of the older high threat characters just need kind of need to be buffed at this point or they aren't going to see play anyways, but Hulk could almost definitely use some toning down.
Respect for coming to the proceedings with a solution!❤
So what I’m hearing is the hulk, the literal strongest being in the marvel universe, is too strong, and thanos takes on the avengers casually most weekends is stronger than 2-3 avengers characters. Hmmm
Nerfing them removes the joy of taking them, if anything just make them 7 threat. Make it a bit riskier to take them but don’t make them worse. The hulk is designed to wreck people it’s why you take the hulk, you want to see him throwing buildings and punching people so hard their models break
Hard agree on all points but we did talk about this beforehand lol
I think Hulk and Thanos are the only models in that list that are warping the game state right now.
I think this is an interesting option to help fix it. I don't hate the idea, but I don't know that this change alone would be enough. I have seen several black order players recently in the TTS league dumpster people and avengers with hulk is still scary. I think toning down those two models is a more likely solution, but there could be a combination of both.
What are your thoughts on taking 6+ in unaffiliated? I saw several Thanos unaffiliated lists that were slapping as they took the reroll all models and death's decree made them hit like trains.
I wasn’t aware of just unaffiliated Thanos squads. If that’s happening, then the character is just too strong. Thanos with a leadership should always be better than unaffiliated imo
There’s a lot more I disagree with than I can list here… but I think the proper solution would be to just fix the 2 problem Kaiju models (Hulk and Thanos) rather than limit the list building of the game. I can *maybe* see an argument for Thanos, but it’s just as much a Gem problem as a him problem. Back when Gems took Character Slots he wasn’t splashed to a significant degree he actually got *significantly* buffed when they did that, and unrestricting Space and Reality was also a huge buff to him when they gave him his only nerf. They reigned in CGR and Mal and now they’re not issues, Hulk and Thanos aren’t any different.
I also think your list of characters “Dumpstered” is flawed and also incorrect. 2-4 threat models shouldn’t be solo’ing him, but having 2 gang up on him is a great way to deal with him. You’ve also got multiple models who are support models who should never be interacting with him, and also listed models with GREAT tools to deal with high threat models in the list.
I was trying to make a point that there has basically always been an overbearing 6+ threat in the game’s existence. And instead of waiting for nerfs, just contain them to 1 or 2 affiliations. It’s easier to game plan for a Hulk in Avengers than Hulk in 25 affiliations.
As far as that list goes, it was a quick thing I did to get an idea of what may be pushed out by Hulk. It’s not meant to be accurate or exhaustive
As a dorm player I approve of this change 😎
But in seriousness, I do like the idea. A problem that is indirectly stated in this video, and many of the comments, is very often 6+ characters are not worth their threat value, either on release or after balancing. I got into this game because of Dorm and Hulkbuster, and they never feel their weight when I put them on the table (unless I play them together). So not only do we have oppressive 6+ splashes, but we have a lot of 6+ paperweights that, in the grand scheme of things, often cost you the extra activation if you brought 2 characters instead without getting the value of 2 activations. As you said, balancing these characters around the leaderships they are affiliated to use could fix this balance problem, and allow more diverse rosters instead of strong model+counter to other strong models+people you actually enjoy/want to play. Alternatively, it could just end up with everyone playing Hellfire Club.
Having events or organized game with affiliation rules I can get into. But I still like the general play anything rule.
I think this is a very interesting idea, and I do welcome some 6+ threat twerking ( thanos is still a major issue) how would this work with OG Strange, Maw and Namor that become 6 Threat when they are loaded with a gem ?
I personally think that leaderships should only work on affiliated characters, this may reduce the splash of big guys?
This is interesting. As in my meta, The big boi threat has gone down significantly. They are no longer defining Our meta at least, not like the super tier affiliations like hfc, Wakanda, Webs etc. Hulk just gets Destroyed. Thanos Cabal sure is a scary list but its nothing like gotg+CGR was before nerfs. I dont see a need for nerfs, there are antibigboy tech available and they have introduced more of it lately. Just by looking at the win percentages, hulk list dont look like a problem anymore?
Also restricting 6+ threats only to their affiliations.. No-fun move Banner :(
Agreed. I'm a casual player and i always ask if people want to use the big boys or not, for i think they can take a big part of the fun of the game and restrict a lot of pieces (not an real issue, but trying new pieces and lists is always nice). In tournaments, they should absolutely do this. Also, this could make AMG release new bigger threat characters to the otther affiliations.
Yeah, my main issue is that you can’t just play cool stuff without getting bullied by a Hulk
idk i think i disagree. A Hulk nerf prolly better. Maybe give him a flip side but add immunity to stagger and bleed. also back load him. 9/11 for stamina. idk something like that
We house rule
2s and 6+ must be in affiliation,
hellfire can only have one 2 and one 6+.
Dark dimension can have two 2 threat, and no additional 6+
@@MadMax-el2el how has that worked out for your group?
@@SyndicateGamingNerdsit's been a mixed bag.
The min/max meta chasers, were largely negative at first. They gave it a chance playing with the house rules. The compromise was, allowing competitive lists if their opponent agrees. Most of them came around and have been enjoying the more active community.
The last one, doesn't seem to understand why people don't want to play optimized lists. I completely understand them, way more than i care to admit. An incident made me realize I needed to quit competitive gaming. So I started focusing on fun first and teaching other people. Our solution was keeping our problem child playing against the twelve competitive friendly club members.
On the other side our more casual minded players that just want to play their faction, plus a splash or two. Have been very happy. The group went from 36 players right after lock downs. Down to 14 regular players before the house rule. Post house rule we have slowly gotten back upto 30 regular players.
Even my murder hobo arse, with my black order only has one 6 plus threat in list and I don't take Thanos with more than one gem. That I randomly roll for before the game.
The idea is good for life of the game but awful for the spirit of the game.
I like the way you’ve worded that! I see it as a lesser of 2 evils