M2.5E or the Time of Errata

[Manic Mouse]

Wyrd have done a phenomenal job of balancing M2E, largely in part to the open beta process.  The more people exposed to models the more feedback Wyrd get, and the more likely it is that wonky interactions get noticed and can be addressed prior to print.  I am of the opinion that it is one of the most balanced war games out there at the moment.

They have even smartly tried to address the problem of errata bloat with the upgrade mechanics, fixing potentially underpowered models with specific (and free) upgrades.  This is certainly an interesting idea, however there are three downsides. Firstly it means that upgrade slots on models are filled with cards to "fix" other models in the crew. Secondly if you don't have those upgrade cards/don't know about them then you're stuck with the "worse" model anyway - at which point is there really any difference between the current solution and offering a fixed version of the original model's rules?  Either way you need to have access to extra knowledge and/or cards to "fix" the model.  Thirdly it adds rules bloat to the game - instead of a minor stat fix or improved rule on a base card you're adding additional rules making the game more complex.  Having said that, again I think Wyrd have done an excellent job with the "fix" upgrades, and many introduce interesting new mechanics into the game (ten thunders archers for example).

However we all know that there is, at this point, a fairly substantial amount of errata for M2E specifically for models on the top end of the power curve which cannot be addressed with upgrades.  Even masters such as Levi and Ophelia have errata.

So I was wondering, given the plethora of masters and models in the game following Ripples of Fate, is it time to go through the models and do a bit of a clean up?  I feel at this point a master has received a significant change in Levi, on his base card and not upgrades, so a M2.5E, or at least an errata pack, is due.

Such a pack could be done like the generalist upgrades, or the wave packs of cards.  A big box of cards that has the updated model and upgrade rules.  An errata conversion pack, so to say.  Obviously the app being made by Wyrd would also be updated.

It would also give Wyrd the opportunity to address problem models and rules.

Personally I think the game could be greatly improved with some teaks to models, and certainly incorporating all the current errata into and easily sourced product would make it much easier for individuals and groups to remain up to date.  There was always the idea that masters get new limited upgrades to update their play styles and offer additional options - this could also be the opportunity to include them.  They would be easily play tested since people already have the models and crews, and open testing would allow both the new upgrades to be tested and the "fixes" to models be tested too.  Wyrd also have said that emissary model upgrades would be coming for the ROF masters, again this would be the perfect opportunity to test them as well.

You would have a M2.5e/errata pack that includes - new upgrades for models and generic upgrades, brand new limited upgrades for existing masters giving new play styles and keeping things fresh, emissary upgrades for the new masters, fixes/update to current models and all the current errata cards.  All having been open beta tested.

It would maybe even be of benefit to update the rules manual with the errata on the general rules, and maybe clean up some of the rules that cause issue - things like elevation and LoS.  Clean up wording etc.

So what changes would you like to see?  What new upgrade ideas do you have for the current masters?

Personally I would like to see some of the following models updated:

Rotten Belles

Widely regarded as the best model for their cost in the game, and Justin admitted given the opportunity to change one model in the game it would be this one.

I would like to see their Ca reduced from 8 to 7 on the lure, and their wound reduced from 8 to 6.  I would also change their "undress" action from a (1) action to a (0) action and reduce the range from 12 to 6", since there is little reason to use it over the much more powerful lure in 90% of situations (given you also get the free pounce).

As a Seamus player I think this would still make them excellent models and great summons - still the best in the game at luring, but they aren't quite as ridiculously tanky for their cost and also gives them a broader tactical use with the new (0) slow.

Sorrows

They just simply aren't worth 5 stones.  They compete with insidious madness which is the same cost and pretty much better in every way - will likely do as much damage with their ranged attack being a Wp duel (thus giving an extra 1 damage from Dora), are more mobile, are FAR more durable, impede cheating in Wp duels.

I would reduce the cost of sorrows to 4 and and increase their Df from 3 to 4 so they don't get auto-hit.  At that point I think there would be a case for taking them over the madness, and it would be viable to take 3 (which it certainly isn't at the moment).

[Sordid Strumpet]

The problem, I think, woth Wyrd openly doing this sort of thing is to invite a monumental amount of backseat/amateur game designing. Everyone on the internet has opinions about what's good or bad. The problem is nobody can agree as it heavily depends on your local player base.

Open beta testing generates a tremendous amount of less than useful data alongside the valuable data, and someone has to sift through all that. Given that Wyrd are working on The Other Side, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't feel that is worth their time.

They've shown that if the competitive scene throws a huge problem (Ratjoy), they'll fix that. Doing anythng else upsets the player base as constancy (that is, not endlessly changing stuff) is more valuable than a steady stream of small fixes. 

If they update all the cards and models, all the books out there are suddenly useless. New players buying these books will be annoyed at the very least.

Inviting the internet to give feedback on basically everything is just going to open the floodgates for endless petitions to change this or that as it's clearly OP.

You can buy the errata'd cards already, and I agree that it would be nice to have new cards for those rare instances where 0 upgrades might as well be on the original card. But a huge re-rack? No thanks.

[Manic Mouse]

24 minutes ago, Sordid Strumpet said:

The problem, I think, woth Wyrd openly doing this sort of thing is to invite a monumental amount of backseat/amateur game designing. Everyone on the internet has opinions about what's good or bad. The problem is nobody can agree as it heavily depends on your local player base.

Open beta testing generates a tremendous amount of less than useful data alongside the valuable data, and someone has to sift through all that. Given that Wyrd are working on The Other Side, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't feel that is worth their time.

True, however I feel that the reason that M2E is so much more balanced than M1.5 is largely thanks to the open beta testing.  There are up sides and down sides - however the release of non-open beta tested stuff in M2E (like Tara) suggests that on balance open testing is the better option.

Quote

They've shown that if the competitive scene throws a huge problem (Ratjoy), they'll fix that. Doing anythng else upsets the player base as constancy (that is, not endlessly changing stuff) is more valuable than a steady stream of small fixes. 

If they update all the cards and models, all the books out there are suddenly useless. New players buying these books will be annoyed at the very least.

And a few years ago I would have agreed with you.  However we're already at the point (IMO) that we've already had a "stream of small fixes".

If you look at the M2E errata it is becoming quite a large file, in which many models have alterations.  I think that at the point where a master has had a base rule on his card significantly altered you've already entered the "lots of important changes" era.  The problem is that getting these "updated" cards in one place is impossible, there are various (0) upgrade patches and other "patch" upgrades dispersed throughout various card packs, and the same with base cards.  It's already messy.  Yes you can buy individual cards now, but again this relies on you knowing that such updated card and upgrades exist, which many casual players may not.

And to clarify - I'm not arguing that every card and model be updated.  I'm talking about consolidating the (extensive) existing errata into one place, and taking the opportunity to errata a couple of models/upgrades per faction.  It would also give the opportunity for testing and release of new limited upgrades for existing masters and the new emissary upgrades.

As for the books - they're not "useless".  All games go through revisions, and there is more to the books than simply the rules for a couple of specific models that may get errata.  At this point the original book has been out, what, 3 years?  Models have already had errata in those books, is the book Levi is in useless?

Quote

You can buy the errata'd cards already, and I agree that it would be nice to have new cards for those rare instances where 0 upgrades might as well be on the original card. But a huge re-rack? No thanks.

Again, not a huge re-rack, but a consolidation of current errata and some tweaks to *select* models that likely need it.

[Sordid Strumpet]

I like the idea of a cleaned up version of Malifaux, but I would very much prefer it to be an internal thing from Wyrd, just proofreading basically and things that they feel need tweaking. I am not optimistic enough to think that an invitation to the internet at large for redesign ideas is going to be the best route to be honest. Comments and suggestions, sure - well justified opinions are always worth considering. But direct input? I'd rather not. 

Successful though open Betas can be for Computer gaming (soecifically to hunt down bugs and to see if there are powerful things everyone ends up doing), I think they are inherently flawed for tabletop for a huge number of reasons.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Not needed I feel. I may change my mind after we feel the effect of book 4 fully, 

[daniello_s]

All I need is to change this Vantage point stupid rule

[Manic Mouse]

7 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Not needed I feel. I may change my mind after we feel the effect of book 4 fully, 

A question I've been pondering is where do they go for book 5, if not a M2.5E?

There are already a ludicrous number of masters in the game with a wide gamut of play styles.  Introducing even more masters into the game may run the risk of stepping on the toes of current ones.

I think new limited upgrades would be great for the current masters, and was something they always talked about.  Some new models to flesh out certain crews again, great.  But I'm not so sure the game needs a new set of masters.

[Fetid Strumpet]

That is actually something I could behind. Many groups I know run the vantage point rules completely differently from each other, each thinkin they are doing it the proper way, or have given up on elevation completely and rendered the game solely 2D.

Mouse, I agree we don't need more masters, I'm still of the opinion we didn't need the masters we got in book 4, nor really need any, ever, in the future. Though that is strictly from a game perspective, not necessarily from a business one.

Im on record for many months saying I think the next book should focus on new upgrades for old masters. 

But I don't think we need a massive errata for models, belles and sorrows included, nor getting rid of the 0 cost upgrade patch system.

the only thing I do agree that could use some fixing is the elevation rules. Fix them, which would be my preference, or scrap them completely and go solely 2D. This would not be my preference but at least it would make the bar none most annoying and confusing element of the game manageable.

[Sordid Strumpet]

So if unrestrained growth isn't healthy (is it ever?), is there a point at which a game can be called "done" and instead of growing the game, you actively pursue player base growth instead? There might be a point where resculpts instead of more new stuff is the way to make money, and possibly a lot of story-only content like the Avatar upgrades. There's a huge amount of potential in the story developments from Ripples of Fate but I really wouldn't want to see a new box for each master or something.

I like the schemes and stones suggestion of new master models with new limited upgrades, just by themselves (I'd pay $20-30 for that if the sculpt is good enough) very much. In the form of Von Schill with his new prosthetic arm and leg and so on. Maybe a story version of the supposedly vastly more powerful Rasputina (which would be next to impossible to balance as an actual master though outside a campaign or what have you).

[solkan]

I wonder if it would be possible to get a section of the forum set aside for unsolicited business advice and generally telling Wyrd staffers how they should be doing their jobs?

 

[Manic Mouse]

21 hours ago, solkan said:

I wonder if it would be possible to get a section of the forum set aside for unsolicited business advice and generally telling Wyrd staffers how they should be doing their jobs?

 

Can we put it beside the "passive aggressive priory" section of the forum? 

[mythicFOX]

I'll add them in next to place I send people who can't play nice.  

It's a special hinterland through the cracks in reality where the demand wade waste deep in the missing Yan-Lo's beards. Stalked forever by giant Ronin wielding sacks full of old metal Killjoys, the only sounds are the endless shrieking of pointless corner case rules questions without end.

You don't want to go there.

<modhat>

Friendly reminder to play nice guys. It's an interesting topic to discuss.  

</modhat>

[mythicFOX]

<modhat>

Clearly trying to be lighthearted and funny with my intervention didn't work.

Now I've had to remove several posts.

Be nice or get the mod stick.

</modhat>

[Durza]

Personally I think a 2.5 ruleset would be a good move, clean up some of the rules,  add/change some definitions for clarity and cuddle/buff models that need it, stuff like vantage point rules being a big one.

 I don't think a complete rewrite of every model is in order but some models could use some work,  like how clunky Tara is, some of her abilities could be shuffled around and buffed, like maybe add a void keyword to her stuff and let her take it no matter the faction would clean up several models and upgrades. Plus there's the models that show up in every thread about power levels like belles.

I don't think a public beta would be good, as you'll have someone asking for a buff/cuddle for every model. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

I still, aside from wishing the vantage point rules were cleaned up, don't feel the game needs rebalancing of almost any model. If any faction were seriously OP you'd see it reflected in Tournament reports, as we did in 1.0. Its why although I personally find models like Nekima, and the Darkness & Jakob, and the Mech rider pretty much preposterous in their power per point level, I don't advocate for changing them, because everything, for the most part, seems to balance out in the wash, which is as it should be.

Now if one faction were getting in massively more tournament results, and the direct blame could be laid at the feet of a particular model, then sure I'd be right with you. Let's keep in mind before there was even a glimmer of M2E on the public horizon, I was one of the biggest adherents to wanting errata because of how skewed the tournament scene was, at least to my understanding. But just looking at it in isolation and saying, you know this model seems better than it's points so we are going to bring it back in line, firstly means your job will never be done, because the instant you do that you aren't going to fix the issue, all you are going to change is which models are the new always takes, because you cannot perfectly balance the game at the micro level. No one can even agree on what any particular model is that's just right in power level for a given points cost. The issue is, does what you get for cost create more undue victories for one person that cannot be countered by the options available to another. At the moment, in my estimation, even the models I think are egregiously over the line, at least as of book 4, don't seem to be causing that many issues overall. Levi was the only one I personally thought there was enough evidence  to REALLY justify monkeying around with.

Which brings me to my second point, even if you agree with the point that there a good number of models in the game that need rebalancing, you are never going to get consensus on what an appropriate change is. Levi, even after his cuddle, remains one of the most powerful masters in the game, at least in my experience, and you still have people saying the cuddle went too far. And let's not forget that there is an additional supplemental point to this, which was mentioned in why some don't think another public beta for a supposed 2.5 would be a good idea, in that every person would drown out the signal in all the cries for their personal hated models to be Cuddled, and the personal pet models they like but never bring to be buffed. This is partly joined to one of the last points Justin made before he left, in that there is value in consistency, which I more or less agree with. Probably not to the extent he did, but it's still a valid point, and it's one of the reasons why, as clunky as it is, I'm a much bigger fan of continueing to use the upgrade system to fix clunky or underpowered models as opposed to just flat errataing them. Because distrubtution and dissemination is an issue, as are making the wider public aware of them. Changing an actual card makes it problematic for the bulk of their customers who don't hang around forums, and don't continually check the FAQ or Errata page, and who just mainly play with their local groups. If they then show up to an organized event and find out their cards are innacurate, or worse don't find out until late in the event when they might have already knocked players out due to incorrect usage of the card, well that's a problem. Fixing them with upgrades, as clunky as it is, means that at least the cards themselves are generally accurate, and that if you don't know about a particular upgrade, that's to some extent no different from not knowing about a particular model that had good synergy with yours, much more understandable and player friendly in my estimation.

Now of course this is all just interesting discussion, and pretty much without significance as to a very large extent the rules and how to administrate them are now in the hands of Aaron, and we have little previous information on how much he agreed with Justin's philosophy, or on when, and which models might need an errata. Justin was pretty adamant that there always could theoretically be changes, but that overall you shouldn't hold your breath on it and that even the most complained about models in the game were no more likely to get an errata than the least complained about, because he'd need to see how it affected the game, and he'd actually have agree with their stance, which he often didn't. Aaron might be already shining his cuddle bat for Austringers, Belles, the Mechanical rider, the doppleganger, Trixiebelle, rooster riders, and all the more common auto includes and complained ofs as we speak, or just as equally likely, he might be mostly in agreement with Justin's old stance. We just have no idea.

[Kaptain_Konrad]

The only thing I would like added if they do another book, and this is just what I would like to see are:

Rule clarifications 

New upgrades

I've always wanted new masters in the form of old models getting stronger. Example being Candy getting rebellious and going off on her own. I thought it was cool when wyrd promoted old models.

And as a secret wish, Avatars. Cool idea, hard to implement well.

[MrDeathTrout]

I'd like to see a 2.5 book.

1) The core game is absolutely fantastic.  There is very little I would like to see changed (Vantage Point being the only exception I can think of off the top of my head).  I'm not ready for a major overhaul that I'm guessing a 3.0 would entail.

2) I would like to see a few things cleaned up and clarified.  Not changed, just made a bit more clear how they work in relation to other abilities.  As the game has grown some of the new models have done things that don't seem have been anticipated by the original rules.  In some cases it raises tough questions.  Off the top of my head, Burried and Ht for example have quite a few nuances that are not intuitively obvious.

3) If a game is not being updated and maintained then it is dying.  Without regular updates from Wyrd Malifaux will shrink and go away.  While we need regular updates, if the next book was an update and did not add models to the game I would not be disappointed.5) I would like to see the 0-point upgrades incorporated into the models they enhance.  This is a great system to patch on the fly, but incorporation is preferable in most cases.  I do like how the Samurai 0-pointers allow you to run them three different ways and wouldn't be disappointed if this stayed. 

4) I don't support a rebalancing in a 2.5 update.  The game, while not, perfect is very well balanced.  The few teaks that need to be made are well suited to the 6 month eratta cycle.  I would save this for a 3.0 version.

5) The biggest change I would like to see in Malifaux is better timing resolution.  I'd like to see every process broken down into named steps and every ability/action with non-standard timing would say it occurred before, during or after one of those steps.  This would require redoing all the cards for all the models, so might be better suited for version 3.0.

 

[-Loki-]

On 10/30/2016 at 10:01 PM, Sordid Strumpet said:

If they update all the cards and models, all the books out there are suddenly useless. New players buying these books will be annoyed at the very least.

Not all cards need updating, and new players would, at most, just get a slightly different card when they buy their models. They're done it for Malifaux Rats and Metal Gamin already. I'm more of a fan of updating through the base card than upgrades, since upgrades, unless they state otherwise, count to a models upgrade limit. You're not really fixing the model when the fix also limits what else you can do with it.

Doing a 2.5 ruleset, giving an errata to the models that need it, and putting those errata'd in a 'generalist deck 3', on their POD service as well as listing the changes in a free FAQ would be a fine solution. People who don't want to buy the new cards can download the FAQ, those that do can either buy the new Generalist Upgrade Deck or just cherry pick the cards they want from POD.

[Sordid Strumpet]

1 hour ago, -Loki- said:

Not all cards need updating, and new players would, at most, just get a slightly different card when they buy their models. They're done it for Malifaux Rats and Metal Gamin already. I'm more of a fan of updating through the base card than upgrades, since upgrades, unless they state otherwise, count to a models upgrade limit. You're not really fixing the model when the fix also limits what else you can do with it.

Doing a 2.5 ruleset, giving an errata to the models that need it, and putting those errata'd in a 'generalist deck 3', on their POD service as well as listing the changes in a free FAQ would be a fine solution. People who don't want to buy the new cards can download the FAQ, those that do can either buy the new Generalist Upgrade Deck or just cherry pick the cards they want from POD.

It does create confusion, though. Having optional 0-point upgrades is very different from needing a new card. Infinity has just gone through about a year of being updated bit by bit, and with old versions of the rules still out there and partially being used, you saw questions popping up every other day about what's legal and how things work and what book has what profile in it etc.

I'm not a game designer, nor do I run a company so I have absolutely no idea about what the best way would be to handle this. But from a customer/growing community perspective, updating things always creates a large amount of confusion.

I personally don't see the need for updated cards is all. An updated rulebook with better vantage point rules and things like that would be neat, but I'd rather not see lots of small changes to cards being made. But I don't want to tell Wyrd how to run their business I'll keep buying and trying to spread the addiction far and wide no matter what they do.

[Shadowdragon]

On 10/30/2016 at 7:32 AM, Manic Mouse said:

A question I've been pondering is where do they go for book 5, if not a M2.5E?

There are already a ludicrous number of masters in the game with a wide gamut of play styles.  Introducing even more masters into the game may run the risk of stepping on the toes of current ones.

I think new limited upgrades would be great for the current masters, and was something they always talked about.  Some new models to flesh out certain crews again, great.  But I'm not so sure the game needs a new set of masters.

I seriously doubt we're going to get any new masters any time soon, but I'm about 99% sure book 5 (and maybe even book 6) will contain new versions of existing masters (like epic warcasters in Warmachine). The vignettes in book 4 almost guarantee this is going to happen. It could just be done with upgrades, but it's much more likely to be all new cards and miniatures. Otherwise, going forward with malifaux I really hope we see lots of non-LE, non-Nightmare alternate sculpts, especially those that are currently problematic and can be done better (bayou gremlins, steam trunk, watcher, etc)

[Fetid Strumpet]

Doubtful, at least in my opinion. "Epic masters" are essentially brand new masters in all but actual fluff. If you state you don't feel there will be new masters I think it's hard to support, logically, epic masters, especially given the difficulty Wyrd stated they were having making avatars fit in the base game. Could see variant sculpts but I don't have there sales data for how successful the 1.0 alternate sculpts were. They announced alternate sculpts before Twisting Fates came out, I got the impression from what they said they were going to do it for all the masters, but the rising powers masters never got the alternate sculpt treatment. So a valid, but still totally speculative potential reason for it could have been the sales just didn't meet the criteria to continue. If that's the case I could see them being less likely to do the same thing in plastic. But who knows.

As long as we are dreaming I still want an upgrade that lets Seamus hire living non totem showgirls which replaces the living and showgirl traits with undead and belle. 

[-Loki-]

2 hours ago, Sordid Strumpet said:

It does create confusion, though. Having optional 0-point upgrades is very different from needing a new card. Infinity has just gone through about a year of being updated bit by bit, and with old versions of the rules still out there and partially being used, you saw questions popping up every other day about what's legal and how things work and what book has what profile in it etc.

I'm not a game designer, nor do I run a company so I have absolutely no idea about what the best way would be to handle this. But from a customer/growing community perspective, updating things always creates a large amount of confusion.

I personally don't see the need for updated cards is all. An updated rulebook with better vantage point rules and things like that would be neat, but I'd rather not see lots of small changes to cards being made. But I don't want to tell Wyrd how to run their business I'll keep buying and trying to spread the addiction far and wide no matter what they do.

I do agree CB did it in a bad way. The difference here though is in Infinity everything needed to be updated. So there was a year where half the rules and profiles were from one edition, half from another.

A 2.5E neededn't have that confusion. There's a few ways they could go about it. One could be to simply reissue cards through generalist decks and POD, with notes in a FAQ. Another could be to include any corrected cards in the 2.5E book as well as generalist decks and POD and a FAQ.

I'ts not something I expect to happen. Wyrd are very conservative when it comes to doing something that needs a card to be reissued and preferred the 0ss upgrade method. Just saying if they did a 2.5E, there's ways to do it, especially now that they do the Generalist decks which are essentially mandatory unless you photocopy your stuff from the books.

[Cadaverousbirth]

The argument that big changes will bring confusion is mute. People are always confused on well established rules and obsolete ideas within a complex game like Malifaux 

Just today someone asked if Avatars are still in the game. This isn't a dig on them, being new, but illustrates that even years old concepts like Avatars not existing in the base game will confuse people who aren't in the know. That behavior won't change if there are major rules overhauls for models. The answers will just add in "oh and you should get the generalist 3 deck, it has a list of all the updated cards in it." 

Not to mention the daily threads of "how do I use this?" Will just add a couple more "now that this changed, what do?"

[Fetid Strumpet]

The problem with that argument is that it also covers things like: Why ever clean my house, it's only going to get messy again. Why mow the lawn, it's only going to grow again. Why eat right and exercise, I'm going to die anyway.

Yes, you are right regardless of what Wyrd does people are always going to be confused. That's try in just about any situation involving people. Ask how many IT people some time ago had to constantly tell their clients that, no, their computer didn't come with a cup holder, that was the CD drive. Or when entering a web directive and telling them to type only, exactly, and specifically ONLY what they were instructed to, found that the individuals were still typing www. first, even though the tech specifically omitted telling them to type it.

The problem is it about scale. M2E did precisely what many people in the thread are talking about and there is STILL some degree of confusion out there, but it's nothing to what would occur if they did a massive revamp. So I personally don't feel that the argument that some people are confused now, so it doesn't matter if we confuse a lot more people is all that strong an argument.

[daniello_s]

On 10/31/2016 at 1:46 PM, Fetid Strumpet said:

Which brings me to my second point, even if you agree with the point that there a good number of models in the game that need rebalancing, you are never going to get consensus on what an appropriate change is. Levi, even after his cuddle, remains one of the most powerful masters in the game, at least in my experience, and you still have people saying the cuddle went too far. 

Yep, that's me. That's why I'm very suspicious about ANY cuddling of any model now