Hatchethead

I think my group has simply fallen into a rut. We were set in our ways by the time book 2 dropped, we stuck to our guns, playing the occasional shared strat when the flip would dictate (both players flipping the same individual strategy).

It is our custom.

Now that I'm planning my club's first ever tournament, I'm finally seeing our tunnel vision for what it is.

I've been pondering this myself, lately. My group opts for individual strategies almost exclusively. We don't flip on the expanded chart, we automatically flip for individual. It's not even a question.

On one hand, I like the variety, the asymmetry and the complexity therein. On the other hand, sometimes you end up with two strats that don't play well together, resulting in crews avoiding each other as they go about their business.

I'm thinking maybe we should start flipping for it. While there is very little interest in story encounters, we could always do away with that result. 1-8 Individual, 9-13 Shared.

It occurred to me the other day, I've never played Shared Slaughter. That doesn't seem right!

To anyone "In The Know", are there any immediate plans for Wyrd accessories akin to counters, markers, tokens, blast templates, etc.? I would gladly trade currency for such product.

Just curious.

By the by, I realize there are Wyrd Accessories. But I'm interested in Wyrd ACCESSORIES. *wink*

I love it. Is Calmdown bringing Nico, too (assuming he's attending the event)? That would be rad.

I disagree with just ignoring strats and schemes as they are one of the core things that define Malifaux. I'd just use one shared strategy, I often use shared Treasure Hunt, and make it clear the only thing that matters in the game is having that treasure.

I agree. Ignoring strats and schemes can really skew a first impression of the game. I usually do Shared Claim Jump (dog pile in the middle!) with each side "choosing" the Bodyguard scheme. Simple, and it gives the player(s) a glimpse of how the game is meant to be played. Good luck, have fun!

It's also good to keep the player focused while explaining stat cards. For starters, I usually ignore Abilities. "Abilities are passive, always on. For the sake of simplicity, just ignore those for now 'cause it can be a lot to remember!" I focus on actions and AP expenditure, and the rules therein, which means Actions and Spells. Triggers I deal with later, once we've done a few duels and the new player is comfortable with the mechanic. Don't get sidetracked explaining types and characteristics, if you can help it. "They usually determine whether a model can affect or be affected by something." End of story.

Start with a small number of models (you can even pre-arrange them to create a specific scenario), a nice terrain setup, choose a simple shared strat and a mirrored scheme, explain how the stats work (Cb, Rg, Wk/Cg). Show them how movement works, LoS (though don't get bogged down too much while describing terrain, cover, etc., save that for later - for now, "if you're within 1" of an intervening terrain piece, you can claim cover" will do). Then move onto the meat: The different kinds of AP and how to spend them, then focus on Actions and Spells.

Stat cards can be overwhelming to a first time player. WALLOFTEXT syndrome will scare away even an experienced gamer. Be sure to break it down into manageable, bit-sized portions.

Nicooooooooo

I would say that semantics is almost always the argument in these cases.

I was attempting to be a "smartass". I failed, apparently.

There seems to be confusion between the "shortest route to b2b" and "the shortest route to a chosen point in b2b". As Ratty states, you are allowed to push to any point in b2b with the target model. You then have to take the shortest route to that chosen point. Shortest route in this case does NOT indicate the shortest possible route to b2b, which would always be the shortest possible straight line assuming no obstacles.

I wish I had my RM on me. I think I've been confused by this, in the past ...

I wouldn't say it's an "argument". More a "tangent".

"Not optimal"

Or there might be a reason I'm being sparse with the length of my reply at the moment.

=o

You can cheat and/or spend a soulstone. Each player can do either, neither or both, in that order. If you opt not to cheat but decide to soulstone, you can NOT then go back and cheat. In an opposed duel, first the losing player cheats and/or soulstones, the other player then receives the same opportunity.

EDIT: Ninjarat!

Yup. You play out the remainder of the game, which is usually pretty fast. "My model moves, moves, zero action. This model, moves, interacts, no zero. Here, move, interact, there, that's 2 VP for my scheme. This model ..."

It gives the surviving player a chance to tally a few more VP, unopposed. If the tabled crew had a large enough VP lead before being destroyed, and it's late enough in the game (meaning the survivors don't have time to close the gap), they can still win the game without a single model left alive.

Love it! The prospect of a high calibre, competitve player commiting to Book 1 Rezzer masters is very exciting/entertaining/rad/etc. Kirai has already proven herself to be top tier (alongside the majority of masters from Book 2), but I've got high hopes you'll do for Doug and Nico what ukrocky has done for Marcus. As per my tweet, I hope you break the HELL out of them.

I believe there's no "right" answer to this question.

If one knows the enemy faction and the strategies prior to hiring, one tends to hire in favor of accomplishing the strat (VPs) and maybe selects a few models that will benefit versus the faction (moreso avoiding models that would prove a liability in specific match-ups).

If one knows the faction, strategies AND the specific master they will face prior to hiring, things either open up or narrow dramatically. If I'm playing Resurrectionists with access to all models in the range, and my opponent declares Lady J, I'm almost always going to select Kirai. Likewise, knowing Lady J is a potential threat, why would I select anyone other than Kirai going up against the Guild? To be honest, though, this tends to be the line of thinking regardless of when the master is revealed. This is one end of the spectrum. Ultra narrow.

This might be offset somewhat by declaring masters simultaneously (written down or models hidden and then revealed at the same time). Still, the Guild versus Rezzer thought process holds true, you'd probably still see Kirai from the Rezzers and anyone other than Lady J from the Guild, but I doubt that would change much regardless of when players are forced to reveal their choice of master, much like Hamelin versus Gremlins (an Outcast player with options would likely avoid fielding his Gremlins assuming Hamelin is a possibility for his opponent).

On the other hand, if I'm facing Outcasts, knowing the master in advance would dramatically alter my hiring. Models that don't otherwise see a lot of use elsewhere may actually come into play dependent on the enemy master. I'm suddenly building less "generic" versus Outcasts, and most optimized versus Leveticus, or Somer or Viks, etc. I would also need to balance this against hiring toward the quick completion of my strat and/or defense against the enemy strat. This is where the hiring aspect of Malifaux is at it's best, imo.

Neither option is perfect, both have strengths and weaknesses. I'm honestly not sure which I prefer.

*a severed hand dangles from the rafters, suspended by an impressive length of wire cinched around the wrist*

*a single rivet driven through the palm pins a note, scrawled on the same ragged paper:*

"Made you look."

*a small child appears from the shadows; she wears a tattered dress, her face wrapped in soiled rags*

*without a hint of hesitation, she delivers a small envelope to Lonely, winks her one good eye and vanishes back into the darkness*

*inside, a ragged piece of paper folded roughly; a hastily written note*

It reads:

"Can't talk now, busy 'creating'. Enjoy your day!"

"P.S. My odors are natural and beautiful."

"P.P.S. Look behind you."

*a lumbering shadow moves through the thread*

*twisting behind, a large, soggy burlap sack slides and bumps across the floor, leaving a faint rusty red trail in it's wake*

*the trap door to the cellar creaks open, slams shut, and bolts from the inside*

I'm ass-uming he meant to say, "avoid dealing with SO I broke comms".

Broken comms are broken.

*deep within the twisting tunnels beneath the thread, something rumbles ... a belch, perhaps?*

*waves*

The 90's should stay in the 90's

How dare you malign the greatest decade in recent memory!

Granted ... Avengers looks pretty great, but the cast hardly causes rolling blackouts and mysterious mass impregnation ... well ... Samuel L. Jackson, maybe.

This much legendary 1980's/90's action movie star power in one place will tear a hole in space-time. Mark my words.

The combined force of their baditude would tear you to shreds, Chocobo.

Predictions?

Great movie?

Or GREATEST move?