Jump to content
chris_havoc

3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer: None of this is based on anything other than my own thoughts and short discussions with some friends. Any ideas that come out aren't meant to step on anyone else's toes. All my thoughts are not even really speculation as I am not saying that I think we will see these things or prescribing anything to the Wyrds that be. I am just putting some thoughts down so that they are out there to be heard, not to say they should be heard.

So i have had a few thoughts on what I would like to see in third edition (which feels close but I have no insider knowledge to say for sure, just a feeling). These are mostly concerned with what I think could use a change and how to deal with the much larger number of models now in the game for balance purposes.

Needing Change

These are changes that I think need to be made to the rule set for fairness, clarity, or feel. Please bear in mind this is not an attack. I've only found four areas that I feel need change in a pretty big rule set. I think the system as a whole works great.

Height LoS Issue: There is an issue for height that prevents models behind blocking terrain and other models. I think for the most part people play ignoring these rules because they are so unintuitive but that sort of necessitates the change. The issue is that the rules for seeing over things is different for models of differing height. For example, a Ht 1 model can always be seen behind Ht 1 cover by a Ht 2 model.

Heght LoS Fix: A model hiding behind a wall its own Ht should only be visible if any part of its base is more than its Ht in inches away from the base of the obstacle. A model cannot see models its Ht or less behind an obstacle its Ht or taller too, obviously. 

Cover Ht Issue: The issue here is that a model, regardless of height, benefits from cover. This seems silly when a model is Ht 4 alike Lord Chompy Bits and is benefiting from a Ht 1 wall as much as Perdita is at Ht 2 provided they are within 1" and have the majority of their base covered.

Cover Ht Fix: Cover should be downgraded ONCE (Hard to Soft, or Soft to none) if its Ht is double the obstacles. It should be downgraded TWICE (Hard to none, or Soft to none) if its Ht is triple or more than the obstacle's.

Cover LoS Issue: A model must be within 1" of cover to gain its benefits. This seems silly when a model benefits from cover and if it is barely hidden in some cases while a model can be barely visible and still be shot with standard accuracy. Again, this is unintuitive.

Cover LoS Fix: Cover should not only apply if a model is within 1" of terrain. It should only depend on the LoS rules in the book. Perhaps the downgrading could apply in this case too. If a model is not within 1" of terrain but is obstructed by Hard Cover, it would benefit from Soft Cover. If the same is true but behind Soft Cover, it gains no Cover benefit. 

Randomising Issue: Randomising is kind of a double issue. In the first case it is a bit confusing precisely when and how it applies. A model being engaged and in two inches seems simple but doesn't really come across cleanly in-game.

Randomising Issue 2: Secondly, I think randomising is (don't laugh) too random. I think :ToS-Range: Attacks get the short end of the stick because of this rule and I think it is why there is such a proliferation of ranged attacks that do not have the gun symbol attached. Models with these attacks are effectively taken out of the game just by their target becoming engaged and so I think it hurts them too much. I know it seems thematic to have this in as one of your own models might be hurt but mechanically it hurts the game I think.

Randomising Fix: I think the criteria for randomising should be changed to say that it applies if the model is engaged. Full stop. This may seem to make no sense in my complaint that randomising is too harsh but I would add that I think randomising should be removed in favour of applying negatives to the attack. Perhaps apply Cover rules because that's essentially what's at issue. Or apply the negatives incrementally where the shot gains a negative flip per engaging model (to the normal max of 3 net :-flip's). This fix also means that fewer models (like snipers) would need special rules to ignore engagement.

Randomising Fix 2: I think the criteria for randomising should still change but I'm not sure how. Perhaps engaging models must also be in LoS to trigger randomising. Though this time allow randomising flips to be cheated. I prefer the first case to this one but this one has the benefit of being doubly thematic and remedying the issue.

 

Balancing Third Edition a.k.a. Wish Listing:

Game Size: I reckon that the intended game size should double. I.e., I reckon it should be increased to 100ss.

Model Costs: Doubling the game size would allow models to be more accurately costed. Similar to how 1st to 2nd ed increased the game size from 35 to 50. A Nurse for example is perhaps too little at 5ss and too much at 6ss in a 50ss game but that range increases to 10/11/12ss in a 100ss game.

Soulstone Cache: The doubling of the game size poses some issues for the cache in-game. Should it also double or should it stay at 7. I believe it should increase to 14 (or thereabouts) but with an added change to Soulstone Use.

Soulstone Use: I feel that the increase in cache would necessitate a change to how Soulstones are used. My suggestion in this case it to discover the most and least powerful aspects of Soulstone Use and essentially split them up into two. For example no one is often willing to spend a whole Soulstone for attack or defence :+flip but most are to spend it on a Suit. In other words, the :+flipwould cost 1ss of a potential 14ss and gaining a Suit would require 2ss. This would obviously require play testing to figure out which aspects of Soulstones belong where in this cost scale a particular aspect fits but I think it is a decent fix for the issue.

Rework Tara From the Ground Up: Please? She's so cool but so messy. Also, Abominations are too powerful for their Summon costs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning changing the point scale, there's a really important snag: Target numbers in summoning Duels.  If you try to divide back down to fit the card values, you end up with an imbalance between odd and even pointed models.

Also, the problem with changing the point scale is that while you theoretically reduce the error between the model's true cost and it's printed cost, you don't reduce the perceived error overall.  "too little at 5ss and too much at 6ss" just changes to "too little at 10, too much at 11" or "too little at 11, too much at 12".  If not for that model, then for a different model.

Because you have to realize that there are models that are effectively 5, 5.25, 5.5, 5.75 and 6SS.  When you double the point values, you fix the 5.5's, and now the old 5.25 and 5.75's (which may have felt close enough in the old scale) are broken in the new point scale.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@solkan

Thanks for your reply and I think I understand your worries and please correct me if i'm wrong. I'm not sure your concerns mean that we shouldn't adopt a 100ss system because I think I can address them convincingly enough that such a system should at least be considered if not taken all the way to play testing. I suppose my advocacy for 100ss is not to say that it will eradicate all problems, just that it seems a good fix without completely changing how the game works. I'm not arguing that there aren't other ways to fix the problems 100ss addresses but none that are apparent to me. Also, please bear in mind this is equivalent to wish-listing I'm just trying to wish-list in as systematic way as I can.

Double Points Fails For Summoning

Your first argument states that, adjusting for card values, one runs into the same problem as before. This argument is made, I believe, under the assumption that you would have to half the model values to make that work. I'm not sure you do. In fact there are a number of ways to overcome this issue.

1. The Summoning TN is currently generated artificially by adding 10 to the ss cost of a model. So all it requires is a reworking of how the TN is generated. There's no need to half the model's cost in ss down necessarily. 

2. You could just as easily make the TN of the Summon equal to the cost of the model. This would save on wording for sure and for the most part would function the same. The only issue being that low cost models would perhaps be too easy to Summon. If that is an issue (I'm not sure it is how often are people Summoning 4/5ss models over 7-9ss models?) then it would be easy enough to say that the TN is equal to, for example, 12 OR the model's ss cost whichever is higher.

EDIT: I actually thought about this more and it seems a pretty good solution. I'm not hat concerned if you Summon a Necropunk for 5 or 6 card suited if its wasting an AP and an SS. All it means is that Summoners wouldn't have to rely as strongly on card draw (an issue that has lead to weird/problematic exploitation) because at least they could get something out with low cards. They will always go for the bigger model whether the lower cost models are cheap or not.

3. You could also try the reverse of the current system and make the TN equal to model cost minus 5 and see how that works.

4. Another option would be to print Summonable models with TN values on their card that do not have to correspond directly to their cost. This is a logistical nightmare but thought I'd throw it out there because there are models that are worth more or less summoned than their cost would suggest.

Double Points Doesn't Fix Quarter Point Models

Your second argument, if I understand it correctly, is that even if you fix the problems for models that are worth, for example, 5.5ss by doubling them to 11ss, you still would run into models that are worth 11.5ss and this will make them seen more or as broken as models worth 5.5ss now. I don't think this argument stands.

1. Practically speaking, this problem will always be there. If there are models worth 11.5 at 100ss, there are models worth 23.5 at 200ss too. If your argument is that some models will still fall in the cracks then you are right but that that will happen at whatever point level.

2. Your point seems to be that because we cannot completely fix the problem its not worth trying to make it better. A model being costed at 6 instead of 6.25 IS better than one being costed at 6 instead of 6.5. I cannot say for certain that this will equate to it feeling better but no one can say either way until it is tested and the maths would incline us toward it lessening that feeling of disparity.

2. I think 100ss is reasonable - especially given your worry about Summoning and the issue of in-game soulstones - as quadrupling game sizes (not that you suggest this) makes the logistics of that kind of game mechanism far more difficult. 100ss I believe - as above - a Summoning mechanism could still work without too major an adjustment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't recommend some of these changes to LoS. Being able to claim cover from a distant object makes sense, but my experience is that the abstraction aids gameplay a lot. Similarly I don't find the height difference issue unintuitive, it basically simplifies the way distance affects the angle of observation. You can still hide behind height 1 cover if the other party is also ht 1. 

Having played some games with more detailed 'realistic' rules for line of sight I've found the abstractions in Malifaux save a lot of time and debating. If you want to see some good rules for dealing with different HT terrain and distances check out relic knights (1st ed). The game was fraught with other issues but I thought the cover mechanics were a nice compromise in detail and ease of use.

Also, iirc vantage point and falling have been the biggest bugbears when it comes to terrain this edition.

I do agree that randomisation sticks out as an odd mechanic. It doesn't work like anything else in the game and all the flipping cards eats time. Especially when you randomised onto your own dude, have to flip and potentially cheat for both of them to no effect. Negative flips would be more consistent with the rest of gameplay, but would require revaluing projectile attacks, given how much better they'd be with focus etc.

I kind of like the shorter range on randomisation as well to be honest, even if it adds complexity. It makes massive reach less  of an advantage and 3" can look awfully big on the table, especially when you're engaging multiple models all around you.

I think the biggest advantage of a new edition would be standardising special rules and knocking the number of profiles back to a comprehensible level. That and making all the errata masquerading as FAQ into actual rules.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I wouldn't recommend some of these changes to LoS. Being able to claim cover from a distant object makes sense, but my experience is that the abstraction aids gameplay a lot. Similarly I don't find the height difference issue unintuitive, it basically simplifies the way distance affects the angle of observation. You can still hide behind height 1 cover if the other party is also ht 1.

I totally understand where you are coming from and agree. I'm not aiming at realism here just what feels better for flow on the table. Sometimes making the rules feel more fluid requires extra or more precise wording. These are things that come from thinking that they were weird or didn't sit right in-game. I understand the reasoning but if you are playing a game where Chompy is as hard to hit as a Daydream it ruins the immersion and feels kinda dumb for both parties. To be fair, the wording in the manual is fairly hard to interpret. So maybe a fix to the wording there would allay my worries.

16 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Also, iirc vantage point and falling have been the biggest bugbears when it comes to terrain this edition.

Vantage points would be partially fixed by the height thing I think. I agree though, that is definitely an example of rules being more complicated than is necessary just use straight lines, same with flying but I think flying is a rule that is easily understood when playing but difficult to use the language of games to get across. Falling has never really seemed that much of an issue to me it seems fairly clear and fair. What is the issue there?

18 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I do agree that randomisation sticks out as an odd mechanic. It doesn't work like anything else in the game and all the flipping cards eats time. Especially when you randomised onto your own dude, have to flip and potentially cheat for both of them to no effect. Negative flips would be more consistent with the rest of gameplay, but would require revaluing projectile attacks, given how much better they'd be with focus etc.

Well Focus does generally eat up an AP (or significant ss investment) so it seems balanced to me. I would try it with just that change to negatives before adding anything else and test from there. They could even add one of those standard rules you talk about instead of having to constantly say that a model ignores engagement. Marksman: This model gains a + when shooting into engagements.

29 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I think the biggest advantage of a new edition would be standardising special rules and knocking the number of profiles back to a comprehensible level. That and making all the errata masquerading as FAQ into actual rules.

Totally agree. The change from 1.5 to 2nd ed was SO good for those reasons. Do you mean profiles as in models? If so, I agree. It makes it easier for new players to join in. Just not excited to have to wait 3 years for the models I spent so much time and money on to be usable again because I assume 3rd ed will be so good I won't want to go back to 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Double Points Doesn't Fix Quarter Point Models

Your second argument, if I understand it correctly, is that even if you fix the problems for models that are worth, for example, 5.5ss by doubling them to 11ss, you still would run into models that are worth 11.5ss and this will make them seen more or as broken as models worth 5.5ss now. I don't think this argument stands.

1. Practically speaking, this problem will always be there. If there are models worth 11.5 at 100ss, there are models worth 23.5 at 200ss too. If your argument is that some models will still fall in the cracks then you are right but that that will happen at whatever point level.

So what, exactly, does doubling the point scale actually fix?  You still have models falling into cracks, it's just not the current models.

Quote

2. Your point seems to be that because we cannot completely fix the problem its not worth trying to make it better. A model being costed at 6 instead of 6.25 IS better than one being costed at 6 instead of 6.5. I cannot say for certain that this will equate to it feeling better but no one can say either way until it is tested and the maths would incline us toward it lessening that feeling of disparity.

Here's the practical question:  Suppose you have the salary for four developers to go through and rebalance models after changing the point scale.  Because you have to do that, when you change the point scale to identify which of the 5SS and 6SS models are supposed to be 11half-SS models.  How much work do they spend fine tuning the models, and how much work do they spend changing point costs?  

Now, compare what would happen if you said to those same developers "Go through and fine tune the models for the current point scale."  You know, finding those half point models and adjusting them up or down so that they fit better at the power level for their cost.

Given practical, finite resources, which do you choose?

Because for every game system that I've seen change point scales, half way through the development cycle you have people talk about how it would be better if the point scale were different.

You fix half-point models by actually fixing the half point models.  Because splitting a point doesn't solve the problem.  The effort spent rebalancing the models is what solves the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, solkan said:

So what, exactly, does doubling the point scale actually fix?  You still have models falling into cracks, it's just not the current models.

1. It's not THE fix it is a fix that renders a point system more forgiving to balancing issues and a greater number of models. So yeah that. It remedies the potential for balancing and bloat issues. I'm not saying that all they need to do in 3rd edition is find problem models and punch in times 2 and plus or minus one in their calculator. I am also not saying that the next edition should therefore be 200ss necessarily. What I am saying is that increasing point size makes current and future balancing more accurate, more forgiving, and easier to manage. I feel I've argued several times that it is something that takes into account future and not just current models. A model down the line that is worth 11ss but costs 10 or 12ss is, in terms of balance, better than one that's worth 5ss but costs 4 or 6ss. 
 

5 minutes ago, solkan said:

Here's the practical question:  Suppose you have the salary for four developers to go through and rebalance models after changing the point scale.  Because you have to do that, when you change the point scale to identify which of the 5SS and 6SS models are supposed to be 11half-SS models.  How much work do they spend fine tuning the models, and how much work do they spend changing point costs?  

Now, compare what would happen if you said to those same developers "Go through and fine tune the models for the current point scale."  You know, finding those half point models and adjusting them up or down so that they fit better at the power level for their cost.

Given practical, finite resources, which do you choose?

Because for every game system that I've seen change point scales, half way through the development cycle you have people talk about how it would be better if the point scale were different.

You fix half-point models by actually fixing the half point models.  Because splitting a point doesn't solve the problem.

2. I imagine, they require as much work as the other. I am not the game design manager at Wyrd but I imagine the current points cost would function as a reference for the costs of the models whether the game sizes are 50 or 100ss. So I would choose the template that made the balancing process more efficient. Staying at the current game size allows you to prescribe template that says this model should cost what it does now. That means any abilities must be fitted or shoe-horned as far as possible into that template. Consider of the role of the model is lost in fine-tuning it to fit into its expected point cost. Changing that cost requires a lot more testing and refining at 50ss than it does at 100ss because the incremental change is more significant at a lower game size. In other words, at 50ss Malifaux is probably the less-efficient model for future models upsetting balance which means more FAQ's and Errata down the line than the 100s template that can better account for future balancing issues due a greater threshold. So, an argument can be made for either in terms of practicality in terms of long- and short-term application. Upping the SS cost in the last Errata was a mostly effective way to address the problems some models had it would most likely be easier and more effective to implement such a fix at any stage of the design process (including post-release) if one had more room to adjust.

3. Perhaps, I misspoke when I used the word practically. I meant unfortunately. Inevitably. There will be models that are not quite balanced correctly. It will happen because the game is competitive in nature and so will have players exploit the issues in balance to win. Wyrd will also continue to release models because that is how running a company works. Sure they can rely on re-issues of old models when the new edition is released for a while but they will have to bring out new models eventually. A 100ss game size does not change the fact that players and new releases will create balance issues but it certainly lessens the impact. 

4. Again, at no point was I advocating that they don't fine-tune or fix the models. That is expected of a new edition regardless of point size. My question to you is then: If fine-tuning models is expected of a new edition regardless, how does fine-tuning models at the current game size better account for future releases than a 100ss one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the only things need changing are vantage points and a clarification of timing. 

Double points could be useful for cleaning up some models between values currently. Summoning could be set numbers for things.

Other than that I am generally happy with 2e

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantage of 100ss over 50ss is precision. 

There are clearly models now that are off cost (both up and down). Saying that you can just design them better is easier said than done. As evidenced by the latest errata, often a cost shift is easier, but a bit blunt at 50ss. Stuffed pigs were too cheap, but now too much. 

But clearly a price change won’t fix everything in isolation, but the precision really would help. 

My 2 design changes would be Nico and Nekima.  Nico shouldn’t be able to summon all undead, it limits design choices in the future. Let him do zombies (or zombies and horrors and X), but letting him summon everything means designers struggle with imaginative new models for the faction. Let them choose which new one he can summon as they need to.

Nekima hamstrung the development of interesting upgrades for the neverborn faction. They should’ve set are can only use ones of a given trait (whatever you want to call it). But they were so scared of some crazy interactions that neverborn have no interesting upgrades (and i agree she shouldn’t get some form of imbued energies), but a creative limitation would expand the faction choices.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On summoning, you could easily make a separate number on the card. That way you could have 2 models that cost 15ss say but perhaps one needs an 11 and one needs a 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Metalhed said:

Nico shouldn’t be able to summon all undead, it limits design choices in the future. Let him do zombies (or zombies and horrors and X), but letting him summon everything means designers struggle with imaginative new models for the faction. Let them choose which new one he can summon as they need to.

I like this idea. I was thinking of bringing it up but wanted to stay more general. Do you think the same is true for the Dreamer and his ability to Summon Enforcers and Henchmen? Or is it no longer an issue with the viability of different Upgrades? I do like the idea of a Zombie characteristic though. On characteristics, I would like it if Sybelle got that Belle characteristic. Should Kirai and Molly also be limited in their Summoning of Spirits for the same reason? There are a whole bunch now and they would probably shoot past THE summoner if you take Undead away from him. 

5 minutes ago, Metalhed said:

Nekima hamstrung the development of interesting upgrades for the neverborn faction. They should’ve set are can only use ones of a given trait (whatever you want to call it). But they were so scared of some crazy interactions that neverborn have no interesting upgrades (and i agree she shouldn’t get some form of imbued energies), but a creative limitation would expand the faction choices.

This is a good point. I'm sure Archie was designed with Decaying Aura in mind so he couldn't run away with it. I don't know her that well because if I see her I focus (probably to my detriment) on bringing her down quick. So what is the fix there? To design the Upgrades before tackling her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the argument for more-or-less doubling everything's ss costs is that, while it may solve those things that are almost perfectly between its cost and one down/up from it, like Solkan said it doesn't fit the ones that are slightly too good/bad for their cost (the X.25 or X.75's).  So to fix those, we should be looking at a 200ss system.  But to fix the models that are now slightly too good/bad, we should do 400ss system, and so on.  It'll somewhat reduce the number of models who people can argue aren't quite at their "true" cost, but unless you do something absurd like get a system in the thousands of points like some other companies it's never going to be perfect (and honestly, not even then really).  All it'll really do is 1) make a handful of models a bit closer to balance (which we can just do with errata, nudge their numbers slightly or fiddle with an ability) and 2) make everyone have to re-learn the new number system and probably confuse/frustrate casual or new players.

What I think should definitely happen when we get another edition though is a separate Summon value on summonable models.  So as an example, you can have a Hanged have an ss cost of something reasonable for their kit, but then also have an appropriate summoning cost to compensate for their ability to suddenly come onto the field on-demand.

Also, vantage rules just need to go.  I've played at several LGS' and none of them have ever played with buildings that are anything more than essentially a hill or just Impassable specifically to not have to deal with them.  Having just a Low, Med, High system of heights (Low for small objects, kids, and Gremlins, Med for all adult-sized things, High for anything above that) should do just fine if you simplify the vantage stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could be liberal with the zombie (or equivalent Nico trait) to give him flex. But then have the ability (on something like kentaurao) to say sorry to nico. 

Horror Molly is fine as there’s still few horrors (and her summoning kentaurao is actually fine). Kirai and spirit have more choices now than before, but still far less. So would be fine at moment. But to future proof you could do the same. 

Nekima would be fine, just say she can only use (violent - to give a name for now) upgrades. Then as they design them can decide if they want her to use it or not, without limiting the other henchmen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, retnab said:

Also, vantage rules just need to go.  I've played at several LGS' and none of them have ever played with buildings that are anything more than essentially a hill or just Impassable specifically to not have to deal with them.  Having just a Low, Med, High system of heights (Low for small objects, kids, and Gremlins, Med for all adult-sized things, High for anything above that) should do just fine if you simplify the vantage stuff.

That is a cool idea! D&D sizes pretty much. This would make things simultaneously more intuitive and less complex in language to my mind.

15 minutes ago, retnab said:

All it'll really do is 1) make a handful of models a bit closer to balance (which we can just do with errata, nudge their numbers slightly or fiddle with an ability) and 2) make everyone have to re-learn the new number system and probably confuse/frustrate casual or new players.

This happened in 2nd edition and it didn't require much relearning at all as the model count remains roughly the same. New players would be new to the system regardless. I am a casual gamer so I can say it doesn't apply in my case. I also think that, as @Metalhed, says it is a matter of precision. It is a useful tool for balance it doesn't diminish the necessity for a careful consideration of how the models' should work it just makes it easier to price them appropriately.

13 minutes ago, Metalhed said:

But to future proof you could do the same. 

My thinking exactly. It may not address a present issue but it may could prevent a future one. Although it doesn't feel like it is or will be the same issue for them was just curious if you thought it could be. Spirit isn't a general characteristic though like Undead so maybe that's where the issue lies. Or in the fact that any time a Summoned dies for Nico it gives him the opportunity to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chris_havoc said:

That is a cool idea! D&D sizes pretty much. This would make things simultaneously more intuitive and less complex in language to my mind.

Yeah, pretty much.  TOS uses a Low (everything besides Titans and things on elevated terrain) and High terrain system with no vantage rules at all and that works out fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the vantage can simply become adding X" to the model's height. Combine with some fix on height and LoS then it will be fine. think the climble trait also should be changed from 2x of movement to 1x (and flying and incorporeal can go to the top by 0" movement) to encourage playing around buliding more frequencily.

And I think we may have a activation-passing mechanism to help against out-activation crew. There should be a limit of "pass" to maintain the advantages of the out-activating. For example, at the begining of every turn, the player with least model count in the board gains several "passing tokens". The number of "passing tokens" equals to the model count different between the player's crew and opponent's crew, at most of 3 (or any number).

7 hours ago, retnab said:

Yeah, pretty much.  TOS uses a Low (everything besides Titans and things on elevated terrain) and High terrain system with no vantage rules at all and that works out fine.

Speaking of TOS, I would love to see triggers of value different appear in malifaux as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add a limit on how many cards can be drawn per turn or rewrite the card draw abilities to be a lot more restrictive. Also fix and define the weird trigger timings. Several after succeeding triggers seem meant to actually kick in at the duel resolution step but for some reason don't happen until after the action has been gone through while other triggers have very similar wordings but aren't identical so cause a headache on timing. Adding a standard list of maybe 4 or 5 trigger points and triggers then being "when" or "after" in relation to a specific point would make everything a lot clearer. I personally like the cover and randomization rules, forcing someone to not charge you but still being able to shoot them seems appropriate if you have a weapon taller than a normal person and a friend nearby and I think it's a good mechanic for shooty crews. If being engaged just meant cover I think too many models would ignore it and you would be massively screwed against shooty crews because they could just focus (guild rifleman gunlines would be extremely infuriating since they pretty much always want to focus anyway). I would rather add the :ToS-Range: to a lot more cast attacks because I don't think damaging actions with very long ranges should ignore cover and engagements. If they did they should cause maybe half the damage of an equivalent action with the projectile icon. Non-damaging debuff magic could keep targeting stuff without projectiles.

I also feel that most if not all defensive triggers shouldn't be declarable against attacks that you control. The lust draw sillyness, Somer squeeling 16+ inches on friendly bayous missing him and Pandora succeeding on duels against friendlies to push just seems exploitive to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ludvig said:

 Somer squeeling 16+ inches on friendly bayous missing him

It's a bit silly in terms of mechanics but it is so Gremliny. Like, the fearless leader of the gremlins running all over the place because his own team can't stop shooting him instead of the enemy.

 

Personally I think 3e would be an opportunity to cut a lot of stuff. Merge a lot of similar models (is there really a need for so many 5 cost generalist minions in Gremlins for example?), get the game back to where it was around wave 2 in terms of amount of content, but hopefully take all the interesting bits from all the waves. Also tbh instead of making new vantage point rules I'd be up for just ditching them entirely, keep the game played on a flat surface.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

It's a bit silly in terms of mechanics but it is so Gremliny. Like, the fearless leader of the gremlins running all over the place because his own team can't stop shooting him instead of the enemy.

 

Personally I think 3e would be an opportunity to cut a lot of stuff. Merge a lot of similar models (is there really a need for so many 5 cost generalist minions in Gremlins for example?), get the game back to where it was around wave 2 in terms of amount of content, but hopefully take all the interesting bits from all the waves. Also tbh instead of making new vantage point rules I'd be up for just ditching them entirely, keep the game played on a flat surface.

If it was in a random direction it would be fun and gremliny. When it's so tactical I can't see past the mechanics. It's like stuffed piglets that only explode when the gremlin chooses for them to do so while Papa Loco always goes boom and hurts your own stuff. One would think the throwaway mindless zombie pigs wouldn't be tactical masters that could choose to not pull their own trigger and maybe Papa, despite being a bit nuts, wouldn't kill his own kids willingly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

One would think the throwaway mindless zombie pigs wouldn't be tactical masters that could choose to not pull their own trigger and maybe Papa, despite being a bit nuts, wouldn't kill his own kids willingly.

I lol'd. 😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×