Todd

I don't agree/disagree with anything in particular, but I find this thread a little weird and unnecessary in light of the recent "ANNOUNCEMENT: Clarifications/FAQ Page Coming - Seeking Your Input" thread. Other than the card format suggestions, why not just post there?

I like this, but don't think it works. That line of reasoning opens up some weird and unintended situations. For example, two models on top of two different elevated platforms (both the same height). Any line drawn from one's base to another's would technically be across blocking terrain (the platforms they stand on), despite there not actually being anything between them. I think this is just a case of the games 2d centric rules creating a wacky situation. You have to think about the plains. The elevated terrain is really only blocking to things on opposite sides (below/above).

For characters that weren't models before the event, they could always release the normal and avatar version simultaneously. it would be kind of cool to get 5 new avatar/master combos in a book. By designing them together, Wyrd would have much more control over the synergy between the two forms. On a related note, I'm hoping the Governor is a Tyrant! I haven't read all the Twisting Fates fluff yet, so don't tell me if he is.

See, I kind of like that you can do this type of stuff. I don't find it to be particularly overpowered. Actual hit and run tactics are hard to incorporate in a miniature game while maintaining balance. Aside from removing the really cool/fun aspect of the game you just pointed out in your example, aren't guns already on par with flight? They're measured the same way now (vertically). You're just making them the same in a different way (horizontal). Why not just use shorter terrain, so that abstraction of the rules isn't as apparent? To be honest Kael, with the kinds of drastic changes I've seen you propose, and the imbalances you feel need to be addressed, sometimes I don't really get why you play this game? To each his own. Back when I was a red shirt at GW, I got into a discussion (argument) with a local group of gamers about abstract los in 4th Ed 40k. They just couldn't accept area terrain, and clung to true los. I personally found that backward and a hindrance to terrain design. Now, true los is the way it works in 5th Ed. If your group likes the vertical measurement change, go with it. Maybe we'll all be doing it that way come Malifaux RM 2nd Edition.

Yep, Collodi can only take dolls and the weaver widow, that is all. I would drop one effigy, increase your SS pool to 6, and maybe swap the other one for the Arcane Effigy. People often say Collodi doesn't need SSs, but you'll find that he actually does against clever opponents. It's true to an extent, as he doesn't need them for strikes/spells. However, he will use them defensively. It doesn't take long to figure out the marionettes are essential to making Collodi work. Collodi is difficult to kill, but you can only shunt so much damage off on Marionettes before they are gone, and he is effectively useless. Since he can only replenish one Marionette per turn, you'll want to burn SS on defensive flips, and wound prevention in order to keep them alive long enough to do their job. If your opponent goes straight for the Marionettes, Collodi will need the SS for defensive flips and wound prevention while he attempts to rebuild his puppets. Either way, yes he does need SS. Look at it this way, 3/4 SS will get you another Wicked Doll or Effigy. Wouldn't you trade what they offer for the ability to keep Collodi and his Marionettes alive another turn or two? I'm not convinced that any of the effigies are particularly great with Collodi by themselves. I think people just get excited because they are dolls, and he can take them. They don't have the staying power and ability to work alone like the Stitched Together, and they don't have the same ability to keep up with Collodi as the Wicked Dolls. They're somewhere in between. I would recommend the Arcane Effigy, in more of a support role. This crew will burn through cards like crazy. Every card, even just one extra thanks to Arcane Reservoir, will help. Having that edge over an opponent that's had to burn through their hand defensively might just be worth 4 SS itself. At Wk 4 it won't keep up with Collodi. Use the Stitched Together to babysit. Otherwise, I think either the Carrion/Brutal Effigy are still good choices. Has anyone tried running all of the effigies with Collodi at the same time? You end up with a slightly smaller crew, but can activate almost the whole thing at once. Doll Friend an effigy after making them all fast, chain activate them all with Aetheric Connection. You'll have to pace the Colldi/Marionette group so the effigies can keep up, but man that's a nasty alpha strike. Might work well. Maybe something like this... Collodi (5 SS Pool) Marionette Marionette Marionette Marionette Arcane Effigy Brutal Effigy Carrion Effigy Mysterious Effigy Stitched Together Stitched Together Wicked Doll

I really don't see how different deployments create any additional space issues at small/cramped venues. The board is 3'x3', pretty easy to reach anywhere even from your own side. Do you typically play on masked off 4x4's, I could see that being more difficult. Even so, different deployment type wouldn't cause any more issues than any other game (40k uses diagonal deployment on a 6x4). Worse case scenario, you're playing sideways. I'm sure most Malifaux players are able to cope with that. I agree about terrain balance. My solution has been to just take all three deployment types into account when initially placing terrain and follow a few simple guidelines (no gaps smaller than 50mm, don't cut areas of the board off with choke points, make sure things like rivers have plenty of crossings, etc). Certain strategies/schemes are equally affected by terrain placement. Same thing, you place accordingly, or move offending terrain (not hard for the TO to do, if the players can't agree on it). You wouldn't remove all the terrain related strategies/schemes from the game just because it forces you to use some added consideration when placing terrain, right? The deployment types add another aspect of variety/options to the game. They don't make a huge difference, but add a subtle layer like all of the other set-up steps. They add another degree of complexity when choosing your crew and schemes. You feel they don't add anything, but look at the difference between corner deployment and standard deployment in relation to schemes like Breakthrough and Hold out. Obviously the less of these choices, the more balanced/competitive a tournament game it would be. I like to play miniature games competitively, but personally, a game where my master/crew is fixed, my deployment is fixed, and I will always be playing the same handful of shared strategies is pretty much the exact opposite of what I was attracted to about Malifaux.

I'm all for using the set-up rules in their entirety (terrain generation being the exception). Shared Strategies (especially with any master fixing or limitations to crew choice) only serves to encourage the stronger jack of all trades masters/crews. It seems that many tournaments are leaning towards shared strategies and the fixing of crews/masters to some extent. This makes no sense at all. Fixing of masters/crews doesn't make poor master choices better regardless of it being a player's only available crew. On top of that you're likely to have to face other player's power crews due to the shared strategies. The way Malifaux is designed, it seems the intent is to include shared strategies only some of the time. If the goal of using Shared Strategies in tournaments is to ensure consistency, why not randomize the strategy selection but apply it to all the matches. The TO flips twice on the core chart (either shuffling the deck in between flips, or from two different decks) to determine the two strategies used across the board. As with a normal game this might result in a shared strategy or it might not. If non-shared strategies are flipped, the players in the individual matches would then randomize who gets which strategy. This way, strategies are random, not always shared, consistently applied, and preserve the integrity of the game's design. No one would be able to complain that another player got an easier strategy match-up then they did, and players aren't using shared strategies in every game. @Calmdown Why don't you like the other deployment types? Other than diagonal deployment being a pain to easily determine with terrain on the board, I don't see any tournament practicality issues. I feel like they add a further (albeit small) level of depth to the game. Also, they tend to effect how easily many schemes are to achieve (example: power ritual on a corner vs. standard or diagonal).

Check this thread out, lots of base ideas/links. http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?27962-Manufacturers-of-Scenic-Bases

Terraclips are Ht 2 though, right? Also, you could technically "land" on each floor on the way down. So a 30" fall could also = 0 Dg flips. *Kadeton beat me to it!

Read Ratty's post again. It has to be the most direct route. You can end up on the other side of the model, but you can't walk all around the board to get there unless that's the easiest way to get there.

Since places can do both according to the rules, how do we know which one a rule means to do? Does LCB's daydream placing spell work the same way (only makes new daydreams)? Are there any situations where both types of place are intended/allowed?

Not sure if they still do it, but on the old Warmachine forums their equivalent to rules marshals would post "checking", or "it's on the list" and then close a thread so that you knew it was an issue being contemplated. That way you didn't have to bump threads wondering if the issue had just been forgotten. It would be reopened once the issue had been resolved. Now, the last thing I want is for Wyrd to turn into PP, but it was helpful. At this point players are just going back and forth, or posting to bump the thread. Its not like anyone can resolve this other than Wyrd. Just saying.

OUTCASTS! OUTCASTS! OUTCASTS! I voted for outcasts.

Finally pulled the trigger on some cobblestone bases from Fenris. Got them in the mail the other day, and they look great. I went ahead and ordered enough for my entire Hamelin Crew. I'll definitely order more for the rest of my outcasts once I purchase them (may even pick up some of their woodland bases). I was skeptical, but it seems there are actually twelve different sculpts in the 30mm size, 8 in the 40mm, and 6 in the 50mm. They are well cast, very few bubbles, no flash. The base bottoms required a little sanding to flatten them out, but that was it. They are on the plain side, but that's what I was looking for. I'll be adding scenic bits to them myself, they'll serve as a good starting point for that. Also, they have an easy texture to copy when making terrain. However, if you're looking for more character, you may want to go with the Wyrd or Micro Art cobblestone bases. My one complaint is that they came with a flyer advertising their buy three get one free sale through the end of January. I received them on February 1st. *grr* The ebay checkout overcharged on shipping, but I didn't even notice it (not accustomed to pounds). Fenris saw the mistake and corrected it before I even realized what happened. Shipping from the UK to North Carolina (US) took just over a week. Overall, I'm very pleased with my purchase. I will try to get some pics posted once I have time to paint a couple.

Dipping is a method usually reserved for assembly line painting of rank and file models (GW Fantasy). Companies like Army painter make products that are useful for this. In my opinion Malifaux models deserve a little more care and effort since you have so few to actually paint. To use washes, load a brush with more wash than you would paint, and use it to apply the wash to areas of the miniature you want shading. You can use the brush to move the wash around, apply more, or even soak up excess. The idea is to fill the crevices of the model with a darker tone, creating shading. Don't use too much, it will take some trial and error to get the process down. GW's washes are great (devlan mud, badab black). You can even make your own by mixing liquid matte medium with a little water, and the paint color of your choice. There are many recipes you can find on the internet, do a search and check out the results. ---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ---------- You use your modeling clippers to cut coat hangers!?! *shock* On the topic of files, I tend to use mine very little. Pretty much only when I need a flat surface or sharp angle cleaned. I find that 220 grit sandpaper works great in its place. Just cut it into small pieces (1"x2" or 2"x2"). You can fold it to get fresh sharp edges, curves, whatever. The flex of the material helps with getting into the contours of the model better. As long as you use 220 or finer there are no apparent markings in the metal after priming. I tend to buy the small packs meant for palm sanders.

I don't think many of the problem miniatures fall into that category though. Most are 4+ SS models, and often can only be taken in limited numbers. What are we talking about here anyway? Piglets? Changing their SS cost only affects a small portion of a single faction (many consider gremlins to be underpowered in general). Guild Autopsies? The ressurectionists already have a cheaper more effective option in the Desperate Merc. No reason for the autopsies to at least be comparable. Not really any deep ramifications to consider in these cases.

I have to call BS on this Ratty. If a single SS here or there is such a big deal summoning would be far more powerful than it is. Also, think about the extra amount of SS that can be effectively generated in grow lists. The merc tax? Most of those models weren't designed with any particular synergies to out of faction crews, yet come at a premium price. Maybe its a concern at the 2-3 SS level (where 1 SS is 33-50% of the model's cost), but not the 5+ SS range (models like Bishop). Also, I think your viewpoint might be a little biased. I feel like there are actually quite a few models that could do with a slight cost tweak. I agree that stat changes are the better solution, I just don't think SS are as large a denomination as you claim.

Huh. But, vertical flight doesn't cost any movement. So Bishop can Toss Aside a model with flight infinite inches straight up (not that it makes a difference, it won't take fall damage)? Oh, and then there's still three inches left to move. I'm just going to sit back and watch this one guys. I don't see any answers in the rules. Wyrd has some decisions to make about how spirit works. Can't wait to see what they say.

I'm not sure where (either in one of the bajillion current spirit threads, or one linked to in one of those threads), but I recall Ratty saying they are placed back to the point where they first entered the impassable object.

Ok, now I'm with you. That is a much better question. The balcony bit just muddles things. I think "Can spirits be pushed by other models/players through walls/floors," is good enough. Do you have a link to the bit about pushing models "up" (or recall anything that would make it easy to search for)?

Moving through walls/floors is not the same thing as ignoring elevation. You said yourself, it's a 2d game. You don't think that Bishop can toss a model with flight 3" straight up in the air rather than away on the same elevation, do you? I actually don't get how ignoring elevation would figure into your question/example. Are you asking if the Crooligan can be dropped through the floor and pushed out to the street? How wide is the balcony? Why wouldn't they just fall off the edge if it's short enough?

Lol. I see you specifically saying they do not ignore elevation, with a bonus link to a thread confirming what you said.

I was wondering about Sorrows with Hamelin. Seemed like a good idea, I just hadn't seen them mentioned or in anyone's lists. I just picked up the first wave of my Hamelin crew. I'll have to include some Sorrows in the second wave.

Don't you dare! There is nothing at all wrong with this question. I'd like to take this opportunity to address the troll conspiracy to undermine and ruin Malifaux theorists. As a game like this acquires a larger audience, there are simply more individuals scrutinizing the rules. This can result in more errors being found, or differing interpretations of unclear rules. Some people like to bring attention to these situations because they want to make sure they're doing it right, and that everyone is on the same page. This is a good thing. As the game continues to grow we want it to be as clear and accessible to new players as possible. This results in even more new players. This means more games, more places to play, and in general, larger gaming communities for everyone to enjoy. For those of you who already have a tight knit gaming group who all intuitively "get it" all the time, and aren't interested in new players who don't, just don't worry about it. Sit back and enjoy your beer and pretzels. Posting no actual rule info in a rule discussion thread, but telling us how we make you sad, need to cut it out, or are degrading the game? Accusing someone else of being a troll for actually having a clue about how the game works? Wtf? Some people like to talk about this kind of stuff. If you don't, and you can't clear it up using actual rules, just leave it be. No reason to come in and be judgy mcjudgerson. If me, Kadeton, Wolfgar, Smiggs or anyone else prone to this kind of stuff want to go back and forth about it, where's the harm? The mods are there for the final word, and can step in if anything gets out of hand. Personally, the only venom I've experienced in rules debates here on this forum, has come from people who just want the debate to stop, not the ones actually doing the debating.

Some official clarification would be nice. Placement can definitely move a model around the table, as well as bring a model into play. However, it is not specific as to where that model comes from (not in play = buried vs. not in game). I don't see anything in the written rule that would prevent you from bringing a new model into the game with a place. Its getting them from the same place as summon (not in play). Though, I've got a feeling the intent is probably not for place to bring new models into the game.