Schemes & Stones Musing on M3E

[Khyodee]

Let us know what you think about this week's episode.

http://schemesandstones.podbean.com/e/episode-79-musing-on-m3e/

 

[LogsMOLE]

I really hope M3e is NOT coming out next year.  We just broached Year 4 of the M2e ruleset.  I agree with the timing concerns brought up - but I don't see why the resolutions couldn't be fixed with a chart in the FAQ or maybe a 2.5 manual.

Maybe its just me but the edition wars burn me out of a game after a while.

(Love this podcast BTW, Kyhodee.  I only discovered you last month and have been binge listening.)

[Shadowfane]

Amusingly, whilst I usually enjoy your podcast, this time I disagreed with virtually everything said in it

About the only thing I agreed with was that *when* M3 comes out (which I hope isn't for a while yet...) the terrain and vantage rules need looking at.

[Justin]

The only difference between the third edition of a rules set and a 2.5 edition is whether the decimal point makes you feel more comfortable, and whether you want the game to have a bunch of ridiculous charts listing errata instead of just putting it into a new book/cards.

My 2 cents.

[dancater]

While I'd like a 3E at some point I agree that 2018 seems premature.  Still legs in the current set, I'm thinking it will only be enhanced by a little extra time, thinking and trialing before unveiling.

Having said that I would like to see no, or at least minimal, releases for Malifaux rules wise in 2018 and concentrate on Otherside.  This would give the metas time to settle, let Wyrd concentrate on the new release with maximum support, also let Wyrd trial rules which might cross into Malifaux and critically avoid more new models/masters/rules which are multiplying the interaction problems and leading to model bloat and power creep.  It is not terrible yet but I'm noticing the bloat and creep and having difficulty just keeping track.  I'd probably be most in favor of a first quarter 2020 schedule.

As for what needs addressing I'd like terrain/table clarification, I'd like a broader pool of "core" abilities for easy reference and we need an accurate quick reference rules/effect timing chart.

Happy with Factions but would like more emphasis/advantage for in-theme.

Red/Black Joker needs to stay in, I mean if I wanted no random chance I'd play chess.  It is crushing but it makes it tense.  I could see some sort of a mechanic for  Black Joker maybe as it is a little odd that you have an incentive not to get  because of the chance you'll B-Joker.  Not sure what exactly and if push comes to shove I'd prefer to leave it (I understand this is controversial, not looking to start a battle here, simply stating my own 100% meaningless opinion).

I do think that we need a general re-balance and also tweak the factions to preserve each as having a somewhat unique identity/skill set, not completely unique but its getting more and more blurred atm.

[WWHSD]

On 12/17/2017 at 1:51 PM, Lalochezia said:

The only difference between the third edition of a rules set and a 2.5 edition is whether the decimal point makes you feel more comfortable, and whether you want the game to have a bunch of ridiculous charts listing errata instead of just putting it into a new book/cards.

My 2 cents.

If all that’s being done is adding in some timing charts/clarifications and tweaking terrain and vantage point rules, a 2.5 version seems right. No new fluff, model stats stay mostly the same new sections replace the old and the current errata gets added in line. People that already own the big 2E core would probably be fine just picking up the small 2.5E no fluff/no stats core.

If new rules are being added and there’s a shit-ton of changes to models then it’s time to roll up to a whole new edition. This should probably have new fluff as well.

 

[Griautis]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:28 PM, dancater said:

While I'd like a 3E at some point I agree that 2018 seems premature.  Still legs in the current set, I'm thinking it will only be enhanced by a little extra time, thinking and trialing before unveiling.

Having said that I would like to see no, or at least minimal, releases for Malifaux rules wise in 2018 and concentrate on Otherside.  This would give the metas time to settle, let Wyrd concentrate on the new release with maximum support, also let Wyrd trial rules which might cross into Malifaux and critically avoid more new models/masters/rules which are multiplying the interaction problems and leading to model blat and power creep.  It is not terrible yet but I'm noticing the bloat and creep and having difficulty just keeping track.  I'd probably be most in favor of a first quarter 2020 schedule.

Wyrd, please no. To me that would be more or less Wyrd abandoning Malifaux in favor of Otherside, which I don't care at all for. 

[dancater]

5 minutes ago, Griautis said:

Wyrd, please no. To me that would be more or less Wyrd abandoning Malifaux in favor of Otherside, which I don't care at all for. 

Don't want it abandoned but also don't want more and more models, eventually you reach a critical mass and everything collapses in my experience.  I think a year of quiet adjustment and small changes would serve the game and its fans well.  Trust me I'm all in on Faux, I'll look at the Otherside.  But frankly my main problem with Malifaux is finding time to play it.

[Plebian]

I hope they keep 2ED.

 

Note that new editions destroyed Warmachine and 40k. Really Infinity is the only new edition in the last 3 years that didn't immediately tank.

[Pikciwok]

52 minutes ago, Plebian said:

I hope they keep 2ED.

 

Note that new editions destroyed Warmachine and 40k. Really Infinity is the only new edition in the last 3 years that didn't immediately tank.

I would say greed and terrible public relations destroyed Warmachine. New Wh40k edition has rather positive reviews, not to mention better GW policy.

[Pyrflamme]

The new WMH release was rather rushed, and there's some rumors about whether their hand was forced owing to someone in-the-know threatening to spill the beans. It did result in a hit to the game that I've seen, but it's not too drastic. They also seem to be regaining some community goodwill with the CID process, trying to show they're earnestly hammering out issues with each faction, but that has also resulted in some grumbling about when they'll get to someone's personal faction. The Skorne redesign was really good, speaking as someone who didn't play Skorne - they acknowledged they fucked up, went to redo it, and delivered.

[Plebian]

20 hours ago, Pikciwok said:

I would say greed and terrible public relations destroyed Warmachine. New Wh40k edition has rather positive reviews, not to mention better GW policy.

New 40k edition is even more unplayable than the last. The only people who play it now are those who don't care at all about gameplay whatsoever. GW policy hasn't changed, they are just smarter about marketing and people are fooled somehow.

[AgentRock]

On 12/19/2017 at 5:14 AM, Griautis said:

Wyrd, please no. To me that would be more or less Wyrd abandoning Malifaux in favor of Otherside, which I don't care at all for. 

Abandoning their most popular product, a game that literally founded their company, for a new and untested one seems unlikely, IMO. So, sigh of relief friend. 

[katadder]

a 2.5 would be better. just sort out timing rules and vantage point rules.

everything else in 2e works well and most the other ideas on this show unfortunately are pretty bad and would ruin the game IMO (other than a bit more variance in SS costs) but thankfully you guys are not games designers so hopefully wyrd will ignore the ideas  

[Fetid Strumpet]

Fixing the terrain and elevation rules would ruin the game?

Adding a timing chart so that it was more clear how effects, triggers, and abilities interact would ruin the game?

Katadder, I wonder what you consider the game if fixing issues that have been problematic from day 1 ruins it for you.

[katadder]

11 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Fixing the terrain and elevation rules would ruin the game?

Adding a timing chart so that it was more clear how effects, triggers, and abilities interact would ruin the game?

Katadder, I wonder what you consider the game if fixing issues that have been problematic from day 1 ruins it for you.

 

 

I did say about the timing and vantage rules.

it was the other random stuff they came up with, perhaps if you read my post closer you will see that

[the tick]

Definitely agree on the timing chart and terrain/vantage point rule modification/clarifications! I really really want to make multi-level 3D boards work well and intuitively.

The differential triggers sound like an interesting idea too. Maybe something like beating your opponent by 10+ gives you a to your next attack and damage flip?

[katadder]

2 minutes ago, the tick said:

Definitely agree on the timing chart and terrain/vantage point rule modification/clarifications!

The differential triggers sound like an interesting idea too. Maybe something like beating your opponent by 10+ gives you a to your next attack and damage flip?

win more is a bad thing, you already won so why make it even better next time? what if you flip a RJ and pretty much guaranteed the 10+ victory, or they flip a BJ and again guarantees you this. you have already beaten them in a duel and get to apply damage/effects, why should the next one get better?

[the tick]

25 minutes ago, katadder said:

win more is a bad thing, you already won so why make it even better next time? what if you flip a RJ and pretty much guaranteed the 10+ victory, or they flip a BJ and again guarantees you this. you have already beaten them in a duel and get to apply damage/effects, why should the next one get better?

Yeah I'm not a huge fan of win-more effects either, just proposing one potential idea for such a trigger.

[Carecalmo]

We already have an incremental trigger. It's called the accuracy modifier.

I do think that the ones in The Other Side are pretty cool. Especially actions with low target numbers that gain additional effects if you cheat in/flip a high card look interesting. You could have a lot of fun with stuff like that in Malifaux as well. 

[-Loki-]

On 12/18/2017 at 8:51 AM, Lalochezia said:

The only difference between the third edition of a rules set and a 2.5 edition is whether the decimal point makes you feel more comfortable, and whether you want the game to have a bunch of ridiculous charts listing errata instead of just putting it into a new book/cards.

My 2 cents.

Tell me, did 1.5E require redesigning every unit and reissuing every unit card over 2 years like 2E did?

A 2.5E can be used to clean up the issues in the ruleset without feeling the need to do something drastic that comes with a full edition change.

[Sybaris]

@-Loki- Personally, I could get behind a rule clean up, but that's about it.

[Adran]

20 hours ago, -Loki- said:

Tell me, did 1.5E require redesigning every unit and reissuing every unit card over 2 years like 2E did?

A 2.5E can be used to clean up the issues in the ruleset without feeling the need to do something drastic that comes with a full edition change.

Well it did involve about 80% of the models needing updated cards. They weren't as big a change as the change to second ed. But the 1.5 rules were quite different to the original rules in terms of competitive play such as both sides being restricted to the same maximum of vps...

[Shadowdragon]

There are three problems with keeping Malifaux 2E, or just doing a 2.5 update. The first is that even with book 5, people are already crying "power creep" and "model bloat". Doing more of the same for book 6 would only intensify the problem and likely drive people away from any new releases, possibly the entire game. The second problem is that a band-aid isn't going to fix Malifaux. Timing and vantage points are two huge problems, but you only need to look at the errata (which is up to, what, 70+ entries now or something) to see how many more cracks need to be patched. That's way too much for just a 2.5 update to handle. The third, and possibly biggest, problem is that book 5 gave a very strong suggestion that dual faction is being eliminated from Malifaux. Unless the people at Wyrd decide to take the fluff and the game in completely different directions, keeping dual faction in the game just wont make sense any more. You can't just eliminate dual faction in a 2.5 update, it's going to require a whole new version of the game. Normally I balk at the idea of a new edition of a game, but I very much think that Malifaux could only benefit from going to 3E. From everything that's been happening recently I would be tremendously surprised (and a little disappointed) if the next Malfiaux book wasn't 3E.

Edit: Sorry, meant the FAQ, not the errata, and it's up to 150+ entries, not 70+

[Fetid Strumpet]

Nothing mentioned above would be fixed by M3E.

There are legitimate reasons to both do and not do another edition. But model bloat, power creep, and so on would not be fixed by another edition. It wasn’t fixed by 2E. 

I’d also disagree with the idea they are doing away with duel faction. I hate duel faction but it has been relatively popular and has been a good income booster for them. I cannot imagine they would get rid of it. If anything they would just get rid of factions entirely.