nix

This year the rumor was the terrain was built by Mack and Justin and provided for the events, which is very different from past years. I was surprised to see the terrain as well and talk about it a bit on my blog.

I'm not sure if anyone here has any questions for the Outlaw Miniatures team about WWX, but if so please shoot them over to me (or just post them here). I will be recording an interview tomorrow (Wednesday) as a follow-up to our very popular earlier interview with Romeo about the game.

In response to this section of your comments. Swarms have a greater impact on the game of M2E than they did to Malifaux for a number of reasons. M2E has an overall decrease in AP due the overarching removal of "extra AP" abilities. In combination with that, the addition of scheme markers combined with the change to the distribution of schemes requiring AP dedicated to non-movement abilities makes AP more valuable in general*. This is combined with a reduction in the overall choice when it comes to schemes and strategies increasing the overall importance of AP in relation to winning the game. Then there is a further component of the SS change that is harder to quantify. Previously Master's did not need to hold high cards in hand "as much" due to being able to cover with the SS resource. Now your Master becomes a bit more important in many cases and needs to hold high cards in order to cover the weakening of SS in M2E. This means those high cards are no longer available to minions requiring more AP for fighting/defense/killing than in Malifaux. *As reference from above Malifaux 5 of 13 strategies requiring interact AP 5 of 46 schemes requiring interact/non-combat AP M2E (per the last set of beta rules) 2 of 5 strategies require interact AP 10 of 19 schemes require interact/non-combat AP

The foil fate deck looks like one of the original faction colored decks, but the back of the card has Malifaux written in silver foil.

Including book 4 there is something close to 275 models in the game with distinct rules. 128 existing models were tested in the open beta leaving slightly more than half the existing models plus whatever they want to add for Wave 2. I think the larger concern is that all the more complicated masters (Dreamer, Kirai, Colette, Hoffman, Hamelin, Collodi, Lucius, Yan Lo) are left for Wave 2 along with Levi being recycled back into the mix, lowering the "128 existing models tested" by however many of his crew are cycled back with him. The Rising Powers masters, Avatars, and Yan Lo took some of the most work in reaching balance when originally tested. It would be pretty naive to expect they will be easier to balance this time around.

This has been an enjoyable thread to read, especially leading up to a conversation about the current Malifaux community vs. the past Malifaux community. Thank you to everyone who is posting here! *grin* For those who are interested here are some links and quotes to ponder: Regarding Rule systems http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Regarding Names http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html As a note, I spent time on the USPTO site searching for Wyrd's trademarks, but none were able to be located. Then again, I am notoriously bad at performing searches. *grin* Hopefully this is helpful and contributes to clarifying some of the assumptions that have sprung up in this post.

Just because I understand the reason a change was made does not also mean I think its a good reason for the change. I understand the reasons why most (if not all) the changes I mention in the podcast were made. I do not think most (if any) of them are good changes, and I do not like any of them and how they affect the game play. I find it very intriguing to watch the people who are fans of V2 make two arguments which seem to be contradictory to me. Malifaux V2 is a different game. Treat it like a different game and you will like it. You have to Let Go of your memories of Malifaux Classic to enjoy Malifaux V2 On the first point, I do not agree Malifaux V2 is a different game. It has the same name, same characters, similar card flip mechanic, and I am using the same models. It's an update to the game that I do not like. On the second point, there are now mechanics in the core of the game (Core Rules, how models are built, objectives of the actual game) that I do not like. Despite understanding them (and in some cases especially because I understand the reason the change was made) I do not enjoy the new game. Your probably correct, I am not going to enjoy V2 in the long run. I just do not like portions of how the game plays. This is akin to why I will probably never like Flames of War, since I just do not like Historical wargames and probably will never like Infinity since I do not like the order/activation point pool mechanic.

My intent (and Spencers as we discussed it offline) for this thread was to open up any discussion that came from the podcast. If anyone is feeling unwelcome or hesistant to respond in the thread, please feel free to email either one of us (or both of us) directly. We are more than willing to discuss this offline as well. Bill @ gamerslounge.coda.net Spencer @ gamerslounge.coda.net Onto your question. I cannot speak in depth about what was and was not covered during any closed playtesting I was involved in. That testing, specific information about the models and rules, and the process in genereal is covered under NDA except where there have already been exceptions. What I can say is that every issue I raised in the podcast, and every issue that I find that I do not like in V2 was raised at some point since January 2013. Some of these were raised in the closed play testing, some were raised in the open beta test. Some were raised in private emails with a variety of Wyrd employees including Mack, Justin, Eric, and Nathan, some in private conversations directly with Mack and Justin. At this point I feel confident that all my concerns and issues were raised during the process and were understood by Wyrd developers of V2. I fully respect the decisions that Wyrd made and has moved forward with in the development of the new version. Some of my concerns (a fair number) were addressed in some manner. Other concerns I raised were not. I would hope that Wyrd, and the community at large, respect that the podcast was an unfiltered expression of the areas of V2 that I do not like. Now, as the point above is very personal for me, I would not assume to answer for Spencer on the same point. As came across (I hope) in the show, there are still points where Spencer and I are not in full agreement on the good/bad of V2 as well. I will let Spencer answer the question as he sees fit. As to some of the animosity I have seen in the thread, I want to make a point that I thought was clear previously but may not be as clear as I thought. I am not the king of the internet, nor looking for some "mustache twirling evil guy" in Wyrd. I have been a very strong supporter of Malifaux Classic and an even stronger believer and supporter of the gaming community that has grown up around Malifaux Classic. Spencer is in the same boat (here I will speak for him and let him contradict me if he likes). We both made decisions to stop being henchmen and have stopped recording our podcasts for periods of time because of the impact the new version of the game has had on our overall hobby and involvement in the Malifaux game and community. As we were both public figured on the podcasts and the forums (and blogs, etc), we received many requests for explanations why that was. We both held off making a podcast like episode 77 for a number of reasons, including contributing as we could to the playtest and waiting to see what the "final" result of the new version would be. This response actually increased the amount of pressure from the "community" to reveal our personal feelings and reasons for the decisions. We felt that after the announcement of the V2 update being sent to the printers was the proper time to do the recording. We also felt that Gamers Lounge was the proper venue for a variety of reasons including the fact that GL has always been raw and unfiltered in its approach to opinions. I am not saying this to defend any opinions. I expressed my opinions and I do not feel they need any defense. I suspect and understand Spencer feels the same. We both expected some questions and further discussion to come from the podcast and braced ourselves for any animosity that was included. Those questions and that discussion is why this thread was created, not to create a spectacle. I just thought that would be a helpful thought to consider for those who read this far. ---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ---------- I love the play testing process. I dislike the decisions that were made and the specific areas mentioned on the podcast.

I am going to try and respond to a couple points/questions/quotes from the thread: I'm not entirely clear what your asking, but let me try and decipher. If I miss your point then please PM me or repost the question in another way. If I understand your question, your asking how I would feel if Malifaux V2 were the original game released and the current update changed the rules and game to be what 1.5 is. If V2 had been the original game I would not have played it as much as I did. I would have been very unlikely to become a henchman. It would most likely have replaced the GW games I was playing, but I doubt it would get more play than the occasional game (2-3 times a month). It would likely mean I would be FAR FAR less invested in the game on both the effort and the actual model/rules/decks/etc perspective. My suspicion is that it would strongly resemble my collection of PP Hordes (I bought 1 faction well below 50% market value, play less than 3 games a month, rarely buy new models or stuff). That said, this is a very hard perspective to take since its only conjecture of what would have happened if things had been reversed. Fetid answers this nicely below. At this point the added markers have detracted from the game for me. I will say that this is a bigger detraction for Spencer (I believe) than for me however. This is likely the case. I have been blessed to never have to play on a board that was not using some type of themed terrain. It may not have been perfectly themed but I have never once used books, coke cans, or other non-gaming terrain in a mini-wargame. This strongly influences my preference toward the additional markers. I agree, the markers do not detract from the type of board you describe. That said, I would not play a game on the type of board you describe (books/coke cans/not fitting terrain). To that end, I actually have a strong dislike for using most of my GW 40K themed terrain in Malifaux games and avoid it as much as possible. Many of the 40K style ruins are too futuristic for my likes. I will reemphasize, I am blessed to not only have a store with excellent terrain, but to also own a tremendous amount of suitable terrain for all the games I have played. Much of this terrain has been donated and used through the past years as the themed terrain at multiple tournaments such as Adepticon (sometimes for ~ half thier tables). Quoted as reference for the above question. Do based that do not match the terrain bother me? No. This is because on the typical models the base is often obscured by the models that are mounted on them. The models draw the eye while the base is a background component that is easier to blend into the overall board (or be masked by the overall look of the board with models on it). That said, I do prefer to play my guild on my cobblestone Houses of Malifaux table in part because the bases match the board. From that perspective, its pretty clear that I fall into your "that is more hardcore than I imagined". DGraz, I respect your opinion given here. I am pulling out this specific quote because I expect you know different. I expect you know different simply from the communication you and I had at the start of the play testing and you understand better than most the "change I gave it" and the issues I brought up. Just because you came around to liking the V2 changes and I still do not is a sad reason to say you now believe I have "never given it a chance".

I am always up for a game of Malifaux Classic, and happy to run tournaments if there are 6+ people who want to play. *grin*

I have seen the plastic stalker (which to me looks the same as a metal witchling), but were others revealed? Could you give a link?

That sounds like a fun show to record.... *grin* @Halcyon your location lists Washington DC, have we ever actually met? ---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ---------- @Judgeman thats a shame. PM me at some point (if you like) and let me know where your located. I travel a fair amount and have a couple stops on the other side of the country.

@Judgeman - wow, thank you. Even Spencer did not agree with all my points. *grin* Ever get out to the DC/Northern VA area? @Sleeper00 - On the 12inch deployment (close deployment) and why I think its the worst and does not work with Malifaux (Classic or V2). This comes from a combination of a number of different aspects. One of those issues is killing-ness. Having a 12 inch deployment zone means a couple things. First, there is only a 12 inch separation between the two crews if both deploy at/near the edge of the zone. This means that in Classic, where the bulk of the ranges are 10-12 inches, crews are immediately in range to engage each other from the first activation. We already know through seeing the impact of the Chompy Slingshot and Collodi that this can be a bad thing and truly pushes the game into who can activate first (especially with companion). In V2 the ranges have been extended into the 12 - 14 inch ranges with some being even longer. This means that now there is no need to move what-so-ever in order to begin engaging the other models at range. In both editions of the game Melee becomes even more of a powerhouse, as many models are now in range to rush across the very narrow division between zones and tie up the opposing crew, bringing to focus melee combat right from turn 1, on the first activation. In Classic this type of deployment in relation to combat will significantly sway the power-curve toward hard hitting ranged or melee models that can simultaneously activate. In V2 this has a similar effect, although now we look to resilience instead of simultaneous activation. Now, there is also the situation where both players do not deploy at the edge of the zone but one player holds back. This is almost a worse situation, as the player who deploys first ends up at a severe disadvantage in this type of deployment. This becomes especially true if one of the players plans for a ranged crew. In that situation, the ranged crew will always set-up at about the mid-point of their deployment zone. Ranged combat in both Classic and V2 will both be in range to engage from the mid-point of the deployment zone (~7-9 inches onto the board) into the opponents deployment zone, typically fairly deep. Next we look at the fact that Malifaux is not about killing but is about objectives and in V2 its about scheme markers. Being able to deploy 12 inches onto the board and thus starting the game 6 inches away from the mid-line of the board throws off the whole idea behind scheme markers and objectives. Objectives for the most part in both Classic and V2 are created to be placed on your opponents half of the board. Now you can achieve that positioning on turn 1 and again we are down to very little positioning. This will also push the game away from a scheme/objective based game to a combat based game. If we are both looking at the mid-line on turn 1, it serves tactics better to engage and tie up your opponents models as fast as possible. This means that the first person to activate (initiative on turn 1 becomes paramount) gets a distinct advantage to drop the first scheme marker (in V2) or interact with an objective (in Classic) and then its advantageous to just engage and detain (tie up) enemy models so they cannot interact. This means that combat becomes the focus because of the close deployment. Now look at the issues caused with a shift in the game when those two factors intersect. This comes even before we look at the impact of being able to drop aura's and pulses into range on turn 1. @Razhem - Thank you so much for your response. It is well written and reasoned and has been very well received (by me at least). It does sound like we are just coming at V2 from opposite directions. As you mention, must of what I (and Spencer) dislike are the exact things you like. There is a lot to cover in what you typed up, but I wanted to pick out one of the items to respond to. The whole idea behind balance at specific levels was something that Spencer and I talked about exploring in a future episode. I followed the V2 open beta closely and was really intrigued (as I mentioned in the podcast) with the perception that the game was no longer "balanced" outside of the "target" level of 50ss. I was even more surprised that this is such a focus that the designers felt it necessary to insert a "designers note" into the core rules to tell people where to play. In all my years of playing Malifaux I have never heard this concern before. I have heard that larger games let you take "all your toys" so you did not have to make decisions. I also heard that some models just did not work well at lower point totals (taking Nekima in a 25ss list as an example). Until V2, I had never heard that the game was "balanced at a specific point total". This is something that completely baffles me and also leaves me with the opinion that whatever has changed in V2 to create this situation is a change for the worse. As I mentioned in the cast, I have never once run into a situation where I felt the game was unbalanced at any different point level and have played Scraps of 25ss up to 60ss. Now, that said, I also noticed that much of the balance discussion in V2 (in relation to point levels) also intersected with the summoning changes and discussions. I plan to discuss a comparison between Classic summoning and V2 summoning in a future episode (With Cheated Fates Joe of all people). ---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ---------- Spencer needs to get off his but and get involved in the conversation... lol.... *grin* I see the "swarm issue" (which is really just my opinion at this point) to be a direct response to the intersection of a couple changes. First of those changes is the increase in overall size of the game while some specific models were kept at a low point total. A couple of those models (Gremlins, Archnids, Guild Guard, etc) kept their significant status so work with Schemes and strategies very well. Basically, you can buy more and they are just as effective at objectives). Second is the near elimination of extra AP. This means that many/most elite models have less AP to do things in game and need all their 2 AP to position and achieve their goals (attacking, casting, board control, etc) in game. Third are the changes to the core rules around Schemes, Strategies, cover/LOS, and movement combined with the simplification/streamlining of the models. Basically, it is now (in V2) even more important to have more AP that your opponent as more AP translates to more capability on the board. As models are simplified/streamlined to achieve only 1 or 2 purposes and not others they need thier limited AP to do those things. If those things are not dropping scheme markers (such as what Silurid are very good at) then it is better to take more models to get that AP.

Gotcha... apparently I need more coffee today, I'm usually not this dense. (although some would argue) *grin*

What do you mean by this Jonas? My brain slowed down and I don't understand what your trying to say? :Paralyzed_Puppet:

Damn, thats this Saturday. No way I can make it up for that.... :'(

All of my concerns were raised in some form (in person, in playtest, in reports, or in email) repeatedly during the playtest. I even made efforts during the playtest to "temper" my passion for those opinions. It was not always successful, but the effort was made.

Fair. I do not believe "M2E is bad because it was dumbed-down" or even that V2 is necessarily bad at all. I do believe there are a fair amount of things I do not like, along with (to be fair) a number of things I do. The bad just outweighs the good for me, and its not a game I have enjoyed so far. Who knows, maybe 8 games is the magic number to suddenly make me change my ways and fall in love with it. Doubtful but maybe.

It was a really good comment, which is why I brought it up. So did Spencer and I give our reasons why we did not like the things we did not like? Did we explain ourselves (well even?)?

Gamers Lounge Ep. 77 - Therapy is live on the feed. That's right folks, Gamers Lounge is back from Hiatus in some form and a new episode is released into the wild. I was joined by Spencer, previously of Cheated Fates fame, and we dive into a long overdue session discussing what we like and what we don't like about Malifaux V2. We both received a lot of requests for our opinions and in true Gamers Lounge unedited and unfiltered fashion, we express them. As the topic is fairly controversial and appeared to be anticipated, we would love to hear your feedback and thoughts. Spencer and I love email (we can both be reached with our first name @ gamerslounge.coda.net) and comments on the podcast page, but also thought that a forum setting is a cleaner way to have a discussion.

I don't believe that mouseing over the image will register as views, its likely only on a click.

I recently dug out and posted in flickr a collection of the new Malifaux V2 art we got to see during the public beta. It was posted to my blog yesterday and went somewhat viral within the Malifaux twitter community through the day. I was pretty interested to see the results. Disclaimer - These statistics do not mean anything outside of these statistics. So out of a total of nearly 1000 views to the gallery yesterday, here is how the picture status broke out: I thought it was pretty interesting that out of the total views, Sonnia Criid led the most popular views with only 20. I was also surprised to see that none of the gremlins made it into the top 10 views yesterday, although Brewmaster has grabbed an early lead today and Rami is sneaking in at the bottom. Overall just some fun. If you want to check out the collection take a look here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/27500765@N06/sets/72157634677575879/

My blog does not make anything official... I cannot imagine the chaos that would ensue if it did. I did put up a post pointing to the french blog, sharing my Google search to find the blog and art, and adding some opinions on my blog. I do like the art, it looks pretty cool. I will probably pick up the crew, and possibly even pick up the nightmare set during Gencon. It's not enough to change my opinion of V2 however. That said, I am already making plans to set-up 2 recordings for the near future. There are lots of things in the works but there should be at least 1 (possibly 2 depending on length) shows coming out before Gencon. *grin* so Lil Kalki realizes at least I did not take the post as confrontation *grin* cause I like the grinning smiley

Those look nice. How do they fit next to your Guild Guard and Austringers?

I had and still have a very similar experience with V1/1.5. It's a game that clicks for me and has a ton of very intuitive combo's. V2 does not give me a headache (yet) but is just not as enjoyable as V1.