Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. In the interest of making this a productive discussion I'm going to expand on my suggestion. If you don't want a productive discussion, then please don't bother to read. Is it an issue if I play you and I expect a 5 turn game and you expect a 3 turn game? yes I think it probably is. The game would probably end on turn 4 and neither of us would really be satisfied. You would have spent all your resources to score as much as possible in turn 3, and so probably really struggle in turn 4, whilst I would end turn 4 still with resources to use and plans to score points I hadn't been able to implement yet. I'd look at why you aren't reaching 5 turns, but I'm also prepared to accept that some people are not going to play the game fast enough to get the turns. So lets take game time off the table as a list of options. What is taking the time? Decisions and measurement are probably the top 2 things that take time. I'm going to expand a little each of the options I suggested earlier and list a few pros and cons to them. It probably won't be a fully thought out list, but it will hopefully get an idea of how they could work but what might be an issue. Smaller Table. If you play on a 2 foot by 3 foot table (So the same width, but you reduce the distance apart), you will have forced the two sides to start closer together (You could look at Close deployment in M2 as a similar alternative but that did allow you to hide if you wanted). This will mean that right from the start of the game you are much more likely to be engaged in a fight. This will probably increase decisions in that first turn, because placement in that turn becomes more important. Models will die faster because they are under threat from before they activate on the first turn. This will typically lead to fewer decisions to make in later turns as you have fewer models. It also makes it much harder for models to slip round into the back field safely to score points. This will probably favour models with good defences and models with good ranged attacks. It allows "slow" models to get much more involved in the game. It will hinder "scheme runners" as they are less likely to be somewhere safe. Larger deployment areas does this to a lesser extent so I'm not really going to discuss them separately, just note that the larger deployment area won't have as big an impact on a scheme running model. Smaller crews. This will lead to less decision making and less measuring as you have less to consider. But this does strongly favour summoning in general, and can easily lead to situations where 1 moment of bad luck will be more decisive as you are less likely to have the ability to have hired "spare" models. Henchman hardcore has partially used this, and as a balancing act it has forbidden summoning altogether. This isn't a good option for the "main game" outside of a complete edition change, because you don't want to completely remove some crews from being allowed to be taken, but a possibly alternative is you might look to reduce the number of Summon upgrades masters got, if it became 1/3 rather than 2/5 then there would be a lot less summoning possible. I have no idea how balanced this would be as these are numbers plucked from the air, but it might be enough to effect the dominance of summoners. Smaller Hand. One of the longest parts of the game is the choices based around cheating. If you lower the hand size, you may well spend les time thinking about cheating. I know I do, but others may find they dither more. This will put a stronger reliance on raw stats, and probably decrease the power of summoners as Actions with a fixed TN are the most binary actions in the game. If I need an 11 to reach the TN, then both a 10 and a 12 are useless cards for me (You can SS the crow if you're a user so the 12 might not be useless). If I'm doing an opposed duel then every card in the deck might have the potential to win it for me (I've won duels where I flipped the black joker). I might want the suit for a trigger, but hitting without the suit for the trigger will still at least hit. This will probably lead to summoners focusing more on engine building to be their most effective. Only can cheat on your activation. This is a quite out there suggestion, but I don't think its quite as extreme as it seems.You probably find most people spend most of their cheat cards on their own activation anyway. If you remove the possibility for them to cheat on attack you've taken away quite a lot of the decision making steps in the opposed duels, because as well as removing 1 whole persons needing to think about it, you have also removed the thinking the attacker needs to do if they are losing after the flip and how high they should cheat to make sure they hit. This will making attacking stronger, but I've no idea how much. It will also weaken a lot of defensive triggers and be a big improvement to shockwaves. Makign attacks stronger will also result in more models dying, which also speeds up the game as you have less to do in later turns. It puts Luck into the game in a much bigger way, even if it doesn't change that many actual turns. Large areas of hazardous terrain on every table. Another out there solution that might be more sensible than it first sounds. Lets make the whole board be hazardous Poison +1 and ignore models that trigger things off poison (In reality you would probably make a new condition, that works the same as Poison, and is removable by assist). On average every model takes 1 damage at the end of turn 1. They take 1 damage at the end of turn 2, 2 damage at the end of turn 3 and 2 damage at the end of turn 4. This means that models will be doing less over the course of the game, but almost all models would be able to do 3 turns of actions without dying. This will reduce the number of actions performed over the game in a combination of models dying earlier, and people naturally less likely to take "pointless" actions. Change scoring mechanism (In conjunction with reducing the round size). In itself scoring on turn 1 doesn't speed the game up very much if at all. If you tie it in with other options, such as reducing the number of game rounds, then its not so much the scoring mechanisms that have speed it up, but rather the loss of a turn. The game has gone through lots of different scoring options over its history. I started playing when both players had different strategies and you could choose which ever scheme you liked (and not all were worth the same number of points). Over many iterations the game has come to scoring every turn as a way to try and make you have to focus on the mission every turn and not just kill everything, and then score all your points on the last turn. The latest edition has also then tried to make every point slightly harder to score than the last to try and spread out the skill. My view is that a good set of strategies for the game would encourage you to build a different list for each strategy. Not everyone agrees, but that's where I stand. There are some factions that have faction weaknesses. The most common of these is the fact that Guild does not have many fast scheme running models. So if you need to get to the center line on turn 1 to score, then there are not a lot of options in the guild faction to do that. There are a lot more ways to get there for turn 2 and score (obviously). Removing the "manoeuvring" turn from the game will reduce the viability of slower crews and increase the power of fast mobile crews. I may be wrong, but my current understanding of the game is that currently the stronger crews are those that are fast and mobile. I wouldn't want to change the game in such a way that you increased the power level of these crews. There are ways you can make a 4 turn game run that doesn't automatically increase the power of these crews, but a lot of those would be ways that would encourage the reduction of interaction. Reducing the number of turns does the following - reduce actions. Reduce options to use resources, reduce choices. The side effects are that this makes every action and choice you make more important, and so potentially one that you need to think more carefully about. You have a lot more experience in playing a 4 turn game than I do, so you probably have a better idea on what advantages/disadvantages there are to it. I know that if you are to play a 3 turn game in the current rules you absolutely have to do each VP on a set turn, with no second chances if you want maximum score. In a 4 turn game your are allowed 1 slip up with each scheme, but that's it. I would imagine that if your turn 1 when you don't score it is Walk-Focus on a lot of models (or what ever engine building you are doing), you're not actually going to save very much time if you bypass that turn. If your turn 1 does contain meaningful choices, even if you can't score VPs, then you will probably find it takes longer, and removing it doesn't actually speed the game up, and you're kind of in the same place just playing an 8 point game in the 4 turns rather than a 7 point game in those 4 turns. I can remember the designers discussing the change from 6 turns to 5 turns when they did that reduction. I think they looked at 4 turns as well, so its not something that is never going to happen but it is something that will have diminishing returns. Each of the options I've outlined could work with minimal changes outside of a gaining grounds document. Each would make some crews better than they are at the moment, and some worse. Finally, as someone that likes reading posts on this forum, its generally a nice thing if you mis read someones post and insult them over it if you apologise when you realise you're wrong.
  3. Hmm... that's an interesting point. I must admit that i lack experience with Yan Lo both in M2E and M3E, but yesterday I played him for the first time and Retainer crew looks extremely mobile. So much pulls and moves outside of activation. Yan Lo, Chiaki, Soul Porter, Gokudo, Yi, Manos, Izamu - all of them have some movement shenanigans. Yin died 2 times in yesterday game and still came back on the last turn and scored. It was done on porpouse - she soaked lot of resources, lot of cards because of Terrifying, lot of activations because of 9 Wounds and self heal. As for Take Prisoner you are absolutely right. Yin score it easely.
  4. Today
  5. OK. That would be the end of our party... 😆
  6. Try reading, I said end of 3 I was 4-0 down. Easy to score points needed if set up for final turns as I expected and got 5 rounds (2 strat, 3 scheme). And it's not so hard to think I could stop him scoring turn 4 and 5 when I had been stopped from scoring for the 1st 3 turns. It was also a tourney ran by a henchman who runs the biggest tourney in the world, which guess what,I get to end of round 5 in all those games too. 4 rounds will hurt this game as the 1st round is often move and focus, and unless you change how the game works entirely some crews will never see play as they are not fast enough to get places to score round 1. As I said before, aim for round 5, if you consistently aim for round 3 you are subconsciously playing a 3 round game and will not learn to speed up your play and therefore get the full malifaux experience. This is one of the best games out there, and most of us who spend money and travel want to play full games of it, not half games.
  7. Love the idea of a Darkhold. I've used your instructions to get to where you are. I'd really love to know where all those other pieces go.
  8. I mean honestly I think one of the big issues is that people keep calling NVB a "glass cannon" faction, when in reality it's more like a glass handgun. Yes it can still hit hard, but if you have even a little bit of protection, the NVB player has to outplay you to not get run over. I mean I look at someone like Von Schtook and his crew looks almost pound for pound as murder-y as a Nekima crew, but he has absurd tankiness behind it and summoning. If NVB are a glass cannon that's an M1A1... Also I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to slightly outplay your opponent to win. My issue is when you have to massively outplay your opponent to try and squeeze out a one point win if they make a mistake or two, or don't bring an ideal comp.
  9. I wonder how much of it is just that Ressers have 8 solidly playable masters, and Neverborn do not. We have two players who swap between resesrs/Neverborn here (myself included), and Ressers just seem a lot more powerful in general. There's also the issue that the two 'themes' of the factions has ressers coming out on top. Fragile glass cannon is going to generally lose to melee tanky faction, even if both are equally good at what they do. In general Neverborn solve the main problem Ressers have for them (Ressers want to be in melee where they can actually hit you with their powerful attacks, and Neverborn typically have to do the courtesy of getting into melee range). Normally Neverborn manage the risk of getting into melee range by exploding whatever they're fighting, but Ressers are too tanky/grindy for that. So agree that overall Neverborn feels perhaps a bit weak when facing Ressers.
  10. So I've been playing 3e since just after beta, and something that has become apparent to me, is that aside from Dreamer (possibly with zoraida), all of our crews are hard countered by at least one thing in Rezzers hard enough that the matchup is borderline unplayable. Even if you take out the bad crews (Reva, Seamus), they seem to have an answer for everything we do, and do everything we do better. Examples: - Pandora loses terribly because the Daw bubble beats hers, and the other options in the faction outmanuver her easily (looking at you molly...), plus there's Archie. - Titania can somewhat keep up, but the lack of mobility and lack of damage means that they continually heal and outlast you. - Nekima doesn't hit hard enough to get through the main beaters of the faction, and is not tanky enough to last (Von Schtook is basically the Rezzer nephilim crew but better since they have actual defenses and card draw) - Euri is a non-factor since the most popular crew right now (VS) eats his models easily for free summons. Also Kirai and Molly give 0 shits about ice pillars. - Lucius dies to Anna and company. Call it ranting if you want, but while there are some matchups that aren't bad, the possibility of blind picking an unfavorable match-up makes anything other than Dreamer too risky to play into Rezzers.
  11. Third Floor Wars have a video on YouTube about how you construct a crew and another of tips for your control hand in game. Between their blog and channel they briefly introduce most of the crews. The suggested purchase lists in their blog are outdated as a lot of the suggested 2e boxes are now in 3e combo boxes so I’d be wary of buying any suggested 2e sets. If you bought your Kaeris crew back in 2e you’ll need to either track down an Arcanist faction box, download and print them yourself from the Wyrd website, or get the print on demand ones. All the 3e boxes come with the correct cards, and if you’re lucky then your lgs will have them for any 2e boxes they have left in stock. The Crew Builder app is a viable alternative. You’ll need tokens for various in game effects. A quick google of ‘printable Malifaux tokens’ will bring up some you can download and print if you don’t want to buy acrylic or similar just yet.
  12. @lusciousmccabe That is the sickest color scheme I've seen in a while. Both in the sense that it looks vile/gross and also it's cool as hell. @Caedrus I finished the Sonnia box for 41ss. I was initially thinking it was like 25, but I always forget masters and totems have a cost. These feel a little half-assed, but also I'm an Arcanist and only got this box because it was free, so I feel morally justified in not having colored the Stalkers' pouches and such.
  13. Again, I sincerely doubt it will require adjusting the movement of all miniatures. Four rounds is not some drastic departure from 5. At most it would require adjusting some of the deployment areas farther forward - I doubt more than 3" except maybe on corner. Most strategies are perfectly scorable round 1 right now for crews, if the game rules allowed it. Leylines is the perfect example. Claiming a leyline turn 1 isn't very hard, is it? Certainly picking off two scheme runners or a slightly larger model to score Public Enemies is not outside the realm of what already happens in games. Turf markers being flipped round 1 was mostly not done because it was pointless. But it was very easy to get to one and flip it if you wanted to. Reckoning, again not hard to score round 1. I don't understand why you think movements would need to be so drastically adjusted. Does everyone spend both their actions double walking round 1? No? Adjust the deployment zones forward a bit, and then it's solved. Can you walk me through your logic as to why this wouldn't be the case? By the way, the idea of the other player not scoring in the final two rounds while you score every point in them does explain how you're playing so quickly. You just go table your opponent. Once they have 1-2 models, yeah, the game is pretty damn quick. Honestly though, I don't like the "murder the opponent's face until they're dead" playstyle as the primary way to play. So maybe it caters to murder crews, but it doesn't really cater to most of the crews in the game. But yes, it would make "kill now, score later" a harder strategy to pull off, because you would have less later to score in. A win in my book, but I see it would be a loss in yours.
  14. Yesterday
  15. He said at the end of turn 3. So perfectly possible to score 5 points between turn 4 and 5, I've done it myself many times. You can have your opinion, and we can disagree with it. For start, it will require to increase the Mv of all the miniatures, which implies a modification of all the cards in game. For someone like me that bought all faction packs except 2, that's a huge investment of money. And that is only the top of the iceberg. I played many games in M2E (which was way more difficult to play because it wasn't as streamlined as it is now) in 2.5h or less, going to turn 4-5 without many issues. More than once up to turn 6 with Tara (even once up to the 7th).
  16. Let me explain a little concept called "Diff"... Oh good, so, let me see. You scored both points of both schemes in round 5, and one strategy point? ... That was a very legit M3E tournament. Christ. Well, it helps explain how some of these tournaments reach 5 turns all the damn time, they're happening in people's heads. I mean the other thing I was considering is just add 7 to Df/Wp and make opposed duels and tactical actions work the same way. That probably has a much larger game impact though, as you can no longer cheat certain pieces of BS into failing. Smaller tables and smaller crews though? That makes the game very much worse. I'm honestly shocked you're calling that a possibility, because having only 3-4 models really ruins the strategic diversity of the game. Henchman Hardcore is not as interesting a game as full Malifaux, and turning Malifaux into henchman hardcore is silly. Four rounds is perfectly reasonable. And the first round not being scoring is wonky. What's the thematic justification? We have to seize the symbols, but we can't do it too quickly because that would be... I dunno... bad? We complain about focus carry over and too much resources being built up, but why are too much resources being built up? Well, what else is there to do Round 1? If suddenly building up resources too hard starts to threaten your scoring ability (or give your opponent free scoring opportunities) it becomes a choice, and potentially a painful one. Choices are interesting, and this would force you to make more hard ones. Although it helps to know that a lot of people finishing tournament games in 2 hours are people who win tournaments where they score 5 points in the last round. Really tells me how seriously to take the claims that it's happening everywhere. Christ, I taught my friend to play Malifaux a few months ago and he knows better than that.
  17. Whew, cutting it a little bit fine here. This is the last of my Resurrectionists. Tried to make them look more like the glow was coming from in side them as they're ghosts. Don't think it really worked but you live, you learn, you die, you come back, you forget, you take vengeance on the living for their perceived wrongs, or something. That'll be 19 SS for Jack Daw + Restless spirit @Caedrus.
  18. Just started playing in March - I like Shenlong...because they remind me most of Kung Fu!
  19. Playing primarily Pandora, I know the attraction of being really obnoxious
  20. I really like Vickys. I liked them in M2E and I like them now
  21. I am sorry, but I have to agree with you jajaja I haven't played so much this edition, but I really love the Misaki's Rework. So that my vote. Sadly, never tried Shenlong, Youko and Asami because I haven't got them
  22. I don't see the problems everyone else is seeing with Reva. After the changes, she's moved into one of my top tier masters pretty solidly to the point where she is always in consideration to get picked. I've won the last 11 out of 12 games with her. My loss was because I was completely taken off guard by Mah Tucket and lost Reva too early. Vincent - This guy is solid overall, his ability to create pyre markers isn't the best ability but can be a niche use of an action thats needed if your opponent has a way of actively denying pyre markers. I use him interchangeably with Anna depending on the need of the game. Anna can blow up corpse candles while letting them get free movement and gives card draw. Still, he's not the worst henchman and has some thematic uses and is an amazing anti summoner tech piece. Corpse Candles - don't need extra movement, mv 4 isn't great but they are fine. T1, they can push each other an extra 3 inches and they shouldn't be on the board too long. I eat my own corpse candles for focus or reva healing or for double pyre marker placement and then resummon them. Lampads - These are better now that they have a purpose. They are essentially burning batteries for Reva. They don't take damage from burning and can stack it up really easily with all of their abilities so she will always have her + flips which is critical for her Df 5. Also, losing the requirement to pitch a card for the corpse candle summoning makes these guys more viable. Making them incorporeal is an awful idea because then they can't be affected by the pyre markers to pick up the burning. If anything, they should have a way to use the burning like Drauger do. Drauger - These guys are my main complaint, I just don't see a need for them. They are extremely squishy and don't hold up long enough for me. Shieldbearers - MVPs by far. Run two of these and you'll never be sorry. They provide movement/counter movement shenanigans, they are hard to put down, they can gain shielded to allow reva to attack through them, they can defend your important models with take the hit and their attack can be surprisingly gross. Wanyudo - If you aren't running him in your games, you're missing out. His Movement gives the crew a quick scheme runner or counter scheme runner. Mourners - Haven't found a real use for them and don't think I will. More Red Chapel than anything else. Asura Roten - Amazing in the correct pools but just don't rely on her to score all your points. Once your opponent recognizes her value, she'll die quick.
  23. Some suggestions- smaller tables. Smaller crews, smaller hand. Larger deployment. Only can cheat on your activation. Large areas of hazardous terrain on every table. Change scoring mechanism. Longer round times. All can work but they would all change the game in different ways. If you go into a game with the mind set of its a 3 turn game, then you probably will only get 3 turns. So it might be a de facto 3/4 turn game for you, but it not for me Or a lot of other people. I have had more games have important turn 5 than have been irrelevant. It doesn't seem to be that way for everyone. If your group want to play 4 turn games, you're welcome to, and you can consider ways to change the game to suit the way you play. Henchmen hard-core was originally created as a short 20 minute game to play while the final scores were being worked out ( before there were henchmen in the game if I remember correctly, so hard-core). It's now a common format around the world for people that want to play shorter games.
  24. Top table in my 1st m3e tourney, if it ended at round 3 I would have lost 4-0, however I was fortunately playing a 5 round game so went on to win 5-4 and take the top spot
  25. what if, and bear with me here, instead of rebalancing the entire game you just... resigned? You know, if the result is already a foregone conclusion. Like, go watch a professional match of any game from Starcraft II to Go, the vast majority are won by resignation
  26. I think they should put the variable end back in for those of us with time, so can go to round 6, 7 or even 8 😂
  27. The problem is, it's not a problem everywhere. Lots of metas don't finish games. Lots do. You can't punish those able to play in the time limit by screwing the game balance. I get the need to try and fix it for everyone but the better solution would be for metas to understand their playing times and adjust the tournament times accordingly.
  28. I would have to say Youko.... but that's because I'm a jerk, apparently.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information