PierceSternum

I think maybe you did not understand what I mean. I think that 5 turns is a band-aid on internal bleeding. And that it artificially makes many games seem closer than the direction they are going by simply "stopping" the game before it reaches its natural conclusion. And since some final scores are closer for now, we think this must be balanced. I wonder when people learn to play swarm lists very fast what this game will look like. (Aside from pretty terrain covered in markers for many scenarios)

Usain Bolt wins many 100's by several yards. Cut to 85, his margin would be considerably smaller. That is becoming my perspective of M2E. Better crews "run out of time" to create the full margin of victory they would have otherwise. 5 turns feels like an artificial constraint to obscure things and slap a label of "balance" on them. Imagine how "balanced" the game could be at 4, or 3 turns? I get that its entirely too late to change. I just wish that more time had been taken... I am a bit sad.

um, what?

They are not ghostrider to me. I do not care for the new sculpts

lol... he asked you to be polite, which, in your world, means apparently "not attacking". Its a wonder there are any threads without fights in them.

Seems weird to me that Leveticus is no longer in a book... People have mentioned in the past that it might have been good to put no models in the rulebook and then its not an issue and any model changes do not make the book out of date. But that ship has sailed.

Companion allows for a "Chain Activation" which allows for 2.

I do not agree that adding two words is overkill. There is plenty of room for them. I think in the SHORT term that Errata that simply says the NEW wording for the ability is fine.

I am actually interesting in more than a "ruling"... I am interested in rewording the rules that need clarification rather than discussing what was intended or redefining words. Instead of saying "it is ruled that 'once per turn' means A B or C". Once per turn means exactly ONE THING. I do not need it redefined or clarified. I want errata that REPLACES the existing text of the ability or spell in question on a case by case basis and is explicit. "This model may use this ability once per turn." or "This crew may use this ability once per turn." etc...

Seamus' flintlock is once per turn. Interesting mirror match.

And if the opposing crew has the spell? Do you assume and add "extra words" to your interpretation that "once per turn" means only YOUR crew? If so, why do you get to assume those extra words are applicable and the OP cannot assume that "for this model" are the extra words that are added? There are 5 turns in a game, not 10 (your 5 and his 5)... So a turn is inclusive of you and your opponent in the current rules. As written, the spell can be cast once per turn in the game, so the opposing crew could not cast it without further clarification. I think a simple "Once per turn, per crew..." or something to that effect would make it plain. Recently some of the reactions to people pointing out rules wordings have felt very much like when Nix pointed out an issue with activations and companion trumping them and everyone lept on him saying he was just being negative and causing waves when the reality was there was some difficulty working in card trumping rule-book but another section of the rule-book trumping card for circular logic and eventually "Chain activations" were born to clear everything up. That was a GOOD thing, but the initial reactions to Nix were shameful. It would be NICE if people stopped trying to defend what ISN'T there in the rules and just stopped giving their INTERPRETATIONS OF INTENT. When you have to do that, there is more clarity necessary which is usually the point of the OP's in threads like this. This thread is NOT CLEAR what the rule is, unless its really meant that your casting of the spell first in a turn prevents your opponent. Additionally, the other Incorporeal thread remains poorly worded and its alarming to me the reaction to "Reduce... by half" would somehow be rationalized in a FAQ to not mean what those words mean rather than simply FIXING the wording. Rules are not meant to be DEFENDED. They are there to be written CLEARER.

The stated purpose of the rewrite is clarity, it is not at all obvious from the sentence that: "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half." that: Reduce = "Reduction" and that "Reduction" as an action is a quantity that cannot be reduced. Because actions cannot be reduced... Honestly, that whole chain of reactions and definitions feels like a rationalization for why the current wording can stay and just be "clarified" rather than rewording to something VERY CLEAR... Such as: Incorporeal: This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions. It would make more sense to me if we just said the INTENTION is that the damage is rounded up and future printings will make that plain. If there is going to be a FAQ, PLEASE just reword the ability rather than starting down the road of "reduction actions" and what can and cannot be done to them as a result of being "actions". (Why is the "Reduce" an action an not the "halving" ? ) It feels very big "A", little "a" for attacks to me...

Is it academic in that it will be errata'ed, though? A response from the rules maker that RAW is not correct buried in a thread titled "M2E-(beta)-questions" is not a recipe for fixing it, but can be remembered for the duration of Gencon should questions arise during the tourney.

Incorporeal: This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions. ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ---------- The issue is not people's ability to round up, its the determination of what the definition of incorporeal is asking to actually be rounded. To my eye, its the reduction amount that says "by half" which would mean that in the case of 3 damage, the REDUCTION would be rounded to 2, therefore taking 1 damage.

I do not like the look of new Seamus at all.

I agree with Fetid, Viscera is only one worth considering, and even at that, IMO, it loses to Sybelle at the same cost and Hanged for a point more. Valedictorian is not even close at 10 points. And thats only out of this wave 1... Viscera is going to stay the same, as are the other students, and more models are going to come out and make these even more irrelevant. Its a shame because I really felt like the biggest strength so far of M2E was "leaving no model behind" and here, with the first OFFICIAL production releases, I feel like we already have stragglers.

Tomato, tomato.

Interesting read, but the ship has sailed and there would be 99 things in your post that people would want to fight about even if it wasn't too late... I agree in general though that testing is testing and its not inappropriate to consider other systems for what has worked. But then again, as has already been seen, people will argue against that too... But thanks for the post.

I'll not get into what I dislike about M2E in this thread. Instead, I will say that what I like most is that, as a "completionist" that likes to have all the models in his factions, M2E has made nearly every model in my factions usable for something. So, rather than sitting on my shelf so that I "have them all", I can actually bring most, if not all of my faction with me, knowing that there is a chance I might choose to use any of them. (Assuming the next round of models does as good a job at leaving no models behind) While I believe there is a couple exceptions to the rule, its definitely a step up over current M1E for overall model choices.

The sculpts look neat. The model rules are poop. Much better options for the points for every single one of them. No M1E rules for them is enormously disappointing. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Malifaux Classic folks to fill in the gap and make M1E cards for them, since there is nothing they'd be "copying".

Again, I disagree. But that's ok. Its not hard to collect a list of what models people think are weak and to simply choose those that are most often mentioned. Certainly some things get made contentious here. But I am confident that ways could be determined to take in feedback and to consider the YEARS of forum feedback, as well as previous comp-packs to make some fast choices. And the relevant bit to me would be to get a system in place that allows for further tweaking without as much headache so that people did not feel obligated to fight over every last little change they think might ever need occurring because they fear never getting another opportunity. Paralysis by analysis is common in all walks of life. Pick the top priorities and stop talking about the others until its their time. To me, its simply a question on a model by model basis whether a point adjustment makes it viable or whether behavior needs to change. There might be models like Malifaux Child that have no cost at which you would want one, whereas someone like Mortimer might really fall into a lot of lists by reducing his cost by 1 point. I am not looking to problem solve here, but rather to say that I think that a rebalancing of M1E would not be difficult if a clear path and procedure were laid out and solid and consistent mechanisms for feedback were defined and established.

I disagree. 1. The top 5-10 or so models could be reined in ability-wise. 2. The bottom 5-10 models could be improved. 3. Point costs of models in the middle could be looked at. 4. Master Caches could be adjusted 5. A select group of rules could be addressed to be better worded. 6. Awesomeness like pre-measure from M2E could be added. THAT'S what I am talking about. Rewriting everything in the game is what you are talking about and that's exactly what M2E is, so by all means, enjoy it. Its in progress and open for public comment. I do not believe "perfect" balance is attainable in this genre. But I do believe GOOD balance is attainable with a few months work in M1E and I believe that the majority of models do not need to be touched. Its simply those on the ends of the bell curve and some rules that need clarification and consolidation. Simple as that. I believe M2E will launch with much FEWER "bad" models than M1E did. But real balance concerns at the top end are a year+ from being understood. EDIT: And in a wierd sort of way, I think that the positive of most/all models being playable could actually exacerbate balance issues simply because there are more permutations possible. Although I suppose that is compensated by fewer options per model, to a degree.

Point: "I like thing A". Counter-Point: "I dislike thing A". For 3 hours... Ick. Another comparison cast will just lead to another thread of namecalling. IMO, the sooner things are just accepted as separate, the better. Now what HAPPENS to those separated things could be some interesting conversation.

Razhem. Cool story, bro. ---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ---------- I am on the fence about what edition I like more but there are some serious assholes here that make me inclined to not want to be involved with either.

Side... Just like wyrd is people, so are "SIDES". A person, for many reasons that are likely not public, chose to say something. But if classic is actually a community than 1 person does not mean the "side". I guess we will see. I am interestes to hear more about what eric has in mind.