Tawg

I don't entirely agree, just on the basis that good stories can happen on smaller "event" scales. Tracking a Guildsmen through an investigation of a Murder and discovering something terrible (Like McMourning off the clock) could be just as "big" as an event that deals with the City getting a new Governor.. which is what I gathered is happening in the story by hanging around the Nythera event (Something about Lucius being a big-meanie and big explosions, that's about what I got out of that without reading). But certainly, having a huge expanse to work with lends itself to not creating in-congruent story elements, or throwing anything off of the intended course of their "game-plot" which is ever evolving. Rasputina is a witch?! Burn her at the stake!

I think it's more of an issue that Wyrd isn't exactly out to produce novels. While I do think they put great work into what they do, I don't think they're looking to try and market stories on their own. Although I love that they have Chronicles released on a regular basis with new stories and interesting tid-bits, and they involve the community to design or introduce story elements into the game (Like this month's Community Event). So it's great they have that aspect to play around with, but it's not something I see them focusing on anytime soon. Although they did bring on Curtis recently as an Artist, so maybe it won't be too long before they find a writer they really like, and want to be pumping out awesome stories on the regular

Ah, it's a Malifaux in-universe event. Awesome, I should really sit down some time and read all the stories in those books

What time is the Black Power Wars? Is that an actual historical thing, because google told me it's just a cool book around the Napoleonic Wars.

Uh, isn't that the person in the front of the art that is on the Backgrounds page for this game? Like, cutting off the evil looking murlocks face? I guess it's cool to know a name. I feel like the tribal tattoo looks slightly out of place though, on her neck. Maybe it's part of her character // story or something, but she doesn't seem like a person in a gang or.. tribe.. or something. Nah bro, going though the Breach is how people die, or find out they aren't terribly important. If she's important enough to have a name in The Other Side, it's entirely possible she'd just end up a mook in Malifaux. Or at least, I am pretty sure that's how it works. Not everyone becomes powerful awesome things when they cross, right?

That principal is flawed. At least the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" nonsense. Point and case, I don't think any of this is an issue. But me doing what I consider ok would be turned into a slight against a player who is easily offended. A more correct idea might be "Always err on the side of caution if you are not certain of the other person's preferences". If it's something that may be considered touchy by some people (Such as a subject like this, which this thread indicates is taboo to some players), it is best to minimize things that might present problems. At least until you have learned a bit about the player opposite you, and you can confidently tread the water without splashing them in the face. As for the last statement you made, I don't think tossing around questions determines that the cautious answer is always correct. Those answers will stem from a myriad of moral and philosophical beliefs that may vary widely. Likewise, the persons most in need of being mindful of their actions are often the least likely to be the ones who ever question if they've made a poor choice. That mentality doesn't really seek to fix any core issues at hand. I'd rather see people promote a sense of awareness of how their actions impact the people around them, rather than strictly tell those who question possible choices (And thus are already showing mindfulness) to always take the back seat. Maybe I'm just morally bankrupt. Seems like I disagree with a lot of sentiment in this thread.

I only agree to him being a poor sport if he does so knowing he can manipulate the other player. Such would be the case with younger players who might not know better, or gullible friends. If my friends said anything to me while we were playing, I would be completely fine, because I know better than to believe them. Note, that's in the case of any information being "suggested" that is not being revealed or is not currently public information. Because a lie and a truth can not be established. I mean even in game, you couldn't force your opponent to show you their Control Hand if they "lied" about something. And if you somehow could and they were telling the truth, would it then be ok? The issue seems to be the illusion that being told something alters the possibilities that existed prior to being told. Like Solkan said: Of course we all know the possibilities (Assuming we're paying attention). I would just take it a step further and say that false statements without the "maybe" word are no different. They are not effecting the game state. And your choice to take that information and internalize it as truth can not be made to be the other person's fault entirely. But I understand the sentiment, and I don't actively partake in such "bluffing" typically. I'm usually too focused on thinking about what I'm doing in the game, or my next move. But I would more than anything expect this sort of behavior between two familiar persons during a game in which they were both able to play the game smoothly already. Certainly while learning the game, or new crews even, it can be a bit to focus on such that you don't want or need extraneous information.

I don't think you can (Or should) stop someone from stating something like that. The difference between stating it and declaring it is fairly clear, and simply saying I have Convict Labor does not change a game's course. If I note Convict Labor down at the beginning of the game, and by the end of the game I never claim to have had it or try to declare a difference scheme I was able to pull off? That is what I would consider cheating. And the rules are very clear on what happens when you are unable to provide proper documentation of what your Schemes were when chosen at the beginning of the match. If I say I have Convict Labor and have made no effort to do anything related to Scheme Markers, what has changed in the game? Are you going to move a Master into a compromising position based on that bluff // lie? Are you going to move your Master into the same compromising position when you know the Neutralize scheme was in the pool? To allow your opponent to make your plays for you, by their words alone (Regardless of the situation of the board state) is one's own fault. If the opponent was presenting signals of trying to achieve Convict Labor, by placing Scheme Markers near the center line, but the Plant Explosives Scheme is also in the pool, who's fault is it if you move to deny them Convict Labor (Before it is revealed). In what way does them making false statements change the game state before it's revealed? You'd still have the same risk-issue between it being a trap and being VP for them. Once Convict Labor is revealed however, you can be certain how to proceed. Bluffing would be any falsity that does not directly alter the game play. If you state that your Lilith has Df 3, that is a lie. If the opponent tries to hit her and you have a way higher total than they can get after having influenced them with that information, you've cheated. Mistakes happen, and as long as a mistake can be undone it ought to be (Allow them to re-declare their Activation, thought cards flipped for an erroneous duel can hardly be put back). I mean, if I tell you that Schrodinger's Cat is dead, have I lied to you? If you were only looking to open boxes with dead cats in them, and you know everything I know about Schrodinger's Cat, would me saying that it is dead change anything? If it influences your choice to open the box and find a living cat, to your disappointment, can you blame me? Realistically though, I don't think you're not listening to this argument. And I can't really say more to elaborate. I don't think we're really arguing points. I think we are disagreeing on basic principal. And in the end, this is an opinion based subject that will be determined by each player, in each environment and with each opponent. The most important of which will be your TO, as they will have the last say on if you have been abusive of sportsmanship or potentially cheating. As for: I hardly find it logical to permit all cases of "lying" on the premise of including the a "maybe" word. If I started a turn and said "I have all my kings in hand", have I lied? That's a very unlikely truth, and it is entirely possible that it is a lie. But if I start every turn and say "I might be holding four kings." You would be completely ok with that same lie? What's worse, when it ends up being a truth, and you blame the opponent for playing mind games? You shouldn't make a declaration that "all lies are alright if you include the maybe". That's just opening up a can of worms upside down. What has to be considered is the intention behind the statements, falsehood or not. If I say I have all my kings, and am lying, I could just be being silly. Consider: "Ohhhman, good luck this turn, I've got all my kings just waiting to thwart all your plans." I am not changing any game state, and in gentle jest, am hardly harming the game. if instead I said something like: "Oh, good thing I drew all my kings and the RJ. I really left my master out in the open accidentally, but now your attacks won't matter." It may be that the intention is to completely dissuade an opponent from using any Activations to attack my master. I would personally consider this harmless, because hidden information is still hidden (You can not be certain of a players hand, despite statements otherwise), and if you know the course of action you want to follow you're making those choices with all the same risks, whether or not someone reminds you they exist. And if someone did have their full Kings + RJ hand, then you would never have known until after they go, the best you can hope for is to draw out their good cards in less worthwhile duels, but that's the same as normal. The real harm in this statement comes from players who are willing to concede to simple bluffs, or alter their plans accordingly. In a case where a player knowingly attempts to alter another player's actions to impose a handicap on them, this is true harm to the game. But in the end, the issue relies on individuals. If someone made the Convict Labor lie, and instructed their opponent on how to best move 3 models within 3" of their Scheme Markers, then revealed Plant Explosives, that is malicious intent. If someone "lies" or "bluffs" about it, and you want to take the risk, it's all yours. Maybe only moving 1 model into range is a better option when Plant Explosives is possible. But that's a situation that is determined by known facts, such as Scheme Pool and the knowledge derived by your opponent's prior Activations during the game. Point of the story is, this is not a binary situation. And while I find far less offense in it, I think you would be hard pressed to irrefutably prove the harm caused by such false declarations. Yes, they may harm a player (e.g. force them into a bad position, or lose them VP, potentially the game), but it can not be claimed on the back of the statement itself because it, very literally, does not change the game's state. At least not until you choose to believe and alter your actions.

But that's falling hard on the Sensei Yu hard-train. And I agree that he is not poor in TT. His Ace tricks are fun, and certainly benefit a number of models (Never thought about Tengu, but discarding more than one Ace with them would be cool if you were in a Scheme Marker Heavy pool). But I think he benefits much more from his interaction with the Illuminated, which are already a top notch unit, and only further excel with Lynch (And other Brilliance enablers). I mean hell, alone Lynch isn't poor. He's not a killing machine, but he has at least decent triggers on his pistol, and reliable damage with his Play for Blood. But at a certain point if you deny his crew the Brilliance interaction, you start looking at Lynch as only card manipulation, which draws Sensei Yu into the mix for Mulligan, which is amazing. But personally, I see that as more of a trap. At least if you end up playing it too frequently. As a wild card (No pun intended) in TT, or just as a switch up from regular sets of matches? Yeah, I think he is pretty damn cool. But if someone is looking to expand their collection, which means they probably have a smaller pool of masters to choose from, then you're looking at Lynch becoming a new fixture in their play cycle. And as a regular play, if you actively dislike his Neverborn side, I feel like you are missing out on a lot of what he brings to the TT. More over, utilizing him to his fullest potential in TT with as little Neverborn as possible ends up feeling a bit repetitive because it'll almost always include Huggy (Great model, for free? Yes), Sensei Yu (Amazing henchman, combos amazing with Lynch), and a mixture of Flurry and more specific discard goals. Which might offer a bit of variety, sure, but I hate when cores of groups are too static (Lynch, Huggy + Yu is only 9ss, and almost always the best choice).

Don't make false claims during the game. In what way is stating any Scheme a deceleration of your Crew's Capabilities? If you want to say "It's the only way your Crew can score VP, thus it's important to the capability of the crew" then you're pigeonholing yourself into never lying about if you have a Scheme or not. If it's hidden, they don't know. You can clearly state "Yes, my master Tara can activate twice in one turn, and can easily place Scheme Markers for Scheme X." That's a capability of your crew. Saying "I picked Scheme X" changes nothing about your crew, or their abilities. Discussing sad choices you made while playing the game, such as "I really shouldn't have picked this Scheme Y, I didn't realize how hard it was to get past your guys to your deployment zone." is something I would very willfully do, because I often discuss the game even during, to help myself and opponent learn from our collective mistakes. Granted I would never make that same statement, eluding to the fact that I have Entourage, while having two other schemes so my opponent will let their guard down or something. But I don't think lying to people's faces will have an impact on actions. If I draw a Control Hand every turn, and always say "I only drew kings." Will you stop trying to take actions against me? If you subsequently find out, that I did in fact have 4 Kings to cheat in, making a number of your risky moves utterly wasted, would I have cheated? Do you think you'd alter how you're playing around my declaration? I certainly wouldn't consider that cheating. You're either going to be attempting actions, knowing I have cards in hand, or you're going to shy away because you're afraid of losing certain duels. But taking risks is taking risks, whether or not you've been told the risk is high or it's a lie.

I agree. I guess I can elaborate. But considering that it's head on head, there is very little to evaluate of your opponent's words. Their actions should spell out the scenario for you as fully as it can. If they want to suggest that they took Murder Protege targeting one of your two highest costed units, they have not changed the game at all for you. The announcement of such information, which can neither be confirmed nor denied leaves you exactly in the same position you were in previously. Only by their actions, such as avoiding potentially advantageous charges to get closer to killing a certain model, or making an easy target of a "sucker" to remain open to a Henchman // Master, can really let you know. And then there are tells, which all people have, and after playing someone a few times you can probably begin to pick up on. Especially with drawing Control Hand, since it's the most frequent hidden event to occur, you can more quickly learn if a player is prone to groaning at a bad hand or getting too excited for a good one. Or if they simply have a good poker face. But that rule from Poker is amazing, and god I wish people would play by it when playing "secret" information games like Battlestar Galactica (Or any number of other games which require hiding your allegiance). It gulls me to no end when people say the most overt things ever and are like "I had no idea I was giving away information, or gaming the system". Ghurururrghghhh!

uhhh wat.jpg?

I never really followed Wyrd for a long time, so I don't have as much of an impression of any of their "side" games. Unlike GW, whom were the prevailing miniature company as I grew up with the hobby, and I enjoyed the number of specialist games that lived and died by their hands. But I feel like the Wyrd side projects never really had the oomph, or really made a splash, like Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, Inquisitor (Probably the weakest of the Specialist games), or Blood Bowl or the likes. I mean, they have Darkness Comes Rattling now, which is very cool, but also very stand alone. And I can honestly say I've never seen a lick of Jetpack Unicorn or Evil Baby Orphanage (Although looking around the Wyrd site, they seem like they're two parts that go to one whole game? Due to the "The world needs a // an" title). I have actually seen Showdown, and infact own some of the decks for that game. I knew it wasn't exactly the most popular thing, and even now I've never actually played with my decks, but I had bought then hoping for really cool art that I could use as a Fate Deck. Which I could, although perhaps it would be less confusing for my opponent if I simply stick to a more traditional Fate Deck . On the other hand, I own Darkness Comes Rattling, and I know they have produced Kings of Artifice (Though I've not seen anything about it really). But those are more or less "one and done" style board games, although I could see expansions potentially (Most games can expand, after all). Still not as demanding or involved as Malifaux, in so far as depth of story or design space. The one that does strike me as odd that it's listed as a Board Game is Puppet Wars, which I own models for, but I don't think I own the core game as of yet. I find them interesting, and cute, a nice side hobby thing, but I am pretty sure the game is far more remedial, and not exactly on the edge of drawing in new crowds. It's more like a cute little thing for people already into Malifaux, who want little chibi models. All I'm saying is, while Malifaux does move at a fairly decent pace, I am not sure they have another IP really demanding of time or investment of resource? Their flagship is definitely Malifaux, and while TtB is a cool game, it's basically in tandem with Malifaux more than anything, not competing for attention. Unlike GW, who can freely switch between Fantasy and 40k, spreading their love and making the pacing a bit more spread out to ease this sort of "pacing" issue. Although I'm not opposed to @Ice_cat's idea of an art book. I always appreciate art books with video games, I see no reason I should not enjoy having a coffee table style full-art book from Wyrd All I really want from Wyrd, they can't provide me with. I'd have to go work on it myself, because that's the only way I'm going to get a community of players around where I live

I'm not sure what you're looking for Can you tell me about the game? I mean honestly it sounds like you know plenty about the options you're looking into currently. Important information that other forum goers will not be able to fully provide you, since it's information we don't get from your end: Are you playing casual or trying to be as tournament competitive as possible? If tournament competitive, do you know if you'll be reaching into Gaining Grounds 2016, or if your Tournament Organizer (TO) will be simply using the material from the core book. Also with tournaments, your choices would matter more hinging on the TO's choice for single/dual master locked list or simply faction lock for the tournament. For casual play? I mean, obviously anything goes, but you'll want to avoid getting too far ahead of your friends or play group just so you don't constantly grind them to a pulp, because at that point you may find that not many people want to play Malifaux (Depending on your group's tolerance for loss). From the stuff you've listed, things I can say about personal experience? The Viktorias are brutal monsters. If you know how to use them, you will be dicing up anything the opponent doesn't want diced up. If you are unfamiliar with their subtle movement tricks or the finesse required to execute their "kill strikes" you will find yourself wondering what the Viks even do as they are consistently killed. Ronin are great models in general, although they don't particularly excel to the point you'd want to take a full three, and when I take them as Mercs in other Factions, it's just to fill out my 50ss typically. I've never played Mei Feng, or Von Schill. I think Mei Feng is a popular choice, fairly straight forward and her crew is mostly heavy hitting. Uses her Steam vents to hinder superior ranged presence, and they can all ignore Hard to Kill with an upgrade she or Kang can bring, which is great against Ressers. Von Schill I have heard extremely little about, and honestly I don't think people particularly favor him as a master, especially compared to the other Outcast Masters (Like Viks, Tara, Levi, Daw) who all are able to be either more specific with what they do, or simply are a very explosive combo. I have heard however that the Friekorpsmen are somewhat lacking, though with Schill they are slightly buffed which makes them more worth taking. Lynch is interesting. Rising Sun + Hungering Darkness (Or Huggy), is pretty crazy if you can get that to work out. Huggy in general is amazing powerlevel, assuming you don't throw him right into the arms of a waiting Ca attack (Rasputina, Sonnia, many random mages) which would shred him. The mulligan for Draw 3 can be good. I've never tried the upgrade he has which is damage = to hand size, so I can't say how well that works. The Aces for discards is a useful ability, but you'd want to make sure you are keen on the Defensive Stance or have a good number of Rapid Fire // Flurry models with him (Punk Zombies can, Torakage, I'm sure there are more useful ones). If you're not interested in Neverborn or his Darkness aspect though, I'd stay away. He isn't as keyed towards 10T, although he is a good bit of manipulation of deck. Daw I know very little about. Levi I have never played as, or really against I think, but he is a questionable master. He is very powerful from what I hear, and if you can "properly utilize" his tricks, he's almost on the level of making your opponent feel like "properly utilize" was in air quotes because you meant "cheating". Depending on Scheme Pool (The core book vs Gaining Grounds 2016), he has more freedom than other masters. He's neigh unkillable, making Assassinate impossible, but in Gaining Grounds there is a new scheme that rewards the opponent when your master takes damage or is buried, making Levi a liability rather than a pure boon. Of course, Levi is still a monster regardless of the active Schemes, and he is known to tear people in half while ignoring anything they try to do to him. Specifically your opponent will need to learn how to eliminate his Hallow Waifs or their "anchors" or else he can really not be dealt with, so it's a learning curve for your opponent, for sure. I would advise avoiding him depending on how high a technical level your group has, and if you're more casual. Casual players probably will not appreciate what he does. Shenlong is certainly a trick-monster, although it's a bit less overwhelming when you realize you'll be focusing on one or two of the Limited upgrades based on how you want the crew to run. You'll probably never have the Drunken Master unless you build around it, and his Low River is used to heal models when essential, and Wandering River is amazing mobility and focus. Also very useful for Scheme disruption (If scheme markers are involved) or throwing Corpse Markers away from Ressers who may want to use them. As you pointed out, Sensei Yu is, in fact, part of Shenlong's crew. He is what I have come to know as the Golden Child of the 10T. There is no master (To my knowledge) who does not benefit from him, and he can be disgustingly good. Using Wandering River, plus his own Mighty Gust allows him to push any model up to 10" as well as having granted it Fast. With Misaki this becomes a grave threat added to her already deadly mobility. That 10"+Fast combo works well with any heavy hitter, it goes without saying, and with Yan Lo, Izamu would love it. The only thing I would warn, if you are truly intent on getting Shenlong's box and excited about Sensei Yu. Don't make him mandatory in every list. He's amazing, no doubt. But if you fall into the trap of wanting to use him with everything or trying to best abuse his power (Which is slightly above the curve I would say), you may fall into that same issue of players groaning or not wanting to face the "same" lists. Even if they are different, it'll get tiresome to play against him every game. Even though it never get's tiresome playing with him.

I meant the otherway. Like, with limited models in your crew, you might not have a good "Answer" for certain problems. Like I hate putting Torakage anywhere near Teddy, so they end up dancing around the board trying to avoid him since they do awfully little to him, and he can just devour them. Rote memorization just comes with time, if you're able to acquire that level of skill. If not, we have cards for a reason

Often, mostly due to availability of what I have built, I end up running crews with 3 Torakage no matter what masters I'm playing. It certainly allows me to more easily focus on the rules, and I have heard my friend say he often feels lost keeping track of the schemes and strategy once the game starts. So familiarity by limited pool of models definitely increases your odds of at least understanding what is going on. Although they may not always be the best solution for certain problems.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll be making it out to Petoskey weekly (I live just south of Flint, so a bit aways), but I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for making it Malifaux Mondays. I can't for the life of me understand why people don't encourage the use of alteration like this more, having Malifaux day on Thursdays or Tuesdays, how silly!

Vundabar. That's very interesting though, did you do anything to the clay beyond breaking it up? It just looks like there is a layer about 1mm or so at the top that has a slightly more crisp break and the rest has a more rough texture? Honestly, looking over it more, it may even just be my eyes playing tricks, due to the very extreme edge highlight on the most prominent sharp edges of the material, where the horizontal surface gives out to the slight rise. It's probably just in my head Thank you for the answer though. Always love to see an active (And responsive) painting community. I have to say I'm very thrilled to have you on Wyrd's side. Them supporting painting, and the fairly decent number of great painters here on the forums is very encouraging to see

It is pretty hard to argue with Death Wish... Although those actors being slightly more contemporary, which I suspect would be the biggest reason they stand out more to anyone who knows their names, seems like a poor reason in itself. But I will give you that it would probably be easier to fit in a series of principled gunslingin' cowboys than a group of solemn no-joke do-gooder samurai in the middle of the Malifaux universe.

Wait. Was this.. because of this?

Why the Magnificent Seven over The Seven Samurai?

I never ended up asking, but I'm very interested in what you used to base Toni and crew. Lovely set of bases, they make the whole crew feel so much more alive. If I had to guess, I'd say you used a thin foam-board for the "dirt" and overlying tile texture? With miniature bricks and tufts of grass thrown in for good measure. Scored with an xacto knife for the squared pattern? Just curious, I love the effect. If it's too much to respond here though, I would like to submit a request to have it be a tutorial // article in Chronicles

Lee Van Cleef is probably the greatest ever. It's sad that he is so much less well known than Clint . Also, I'm not about cats, and I can guarantee you if there were a cat in this scene, it would not be helping dig any damn graves up!

I didn't think you were. It was more of a knock at GW model ranges from the sound of it. Which, I get that it's an opinion, I just wanted to delineate the fact that they are not making "easy to convert models" as well as "boring models" because they are hand and hand. They happen to both be your opinions, which is fine. I think many GW models are fairly well off with no conversions, despite the ease of changing out a weapon or giving them new arms or heads. Then there are models which I hate the look of in their designed poses, so I fiddle with them much more. But GW didn't make them easy to convert knowing they were making plain or boring things.

No one said it was easier because it was mandatory. They simply design models with a modular frame of mind. You may think they are not that thrilling, or think that converting models is an effect of disliking the original, but the two items are not inherently linked. I would also like to point out that many people (Such as myself) rather enjoy the aspect of building and modeling, even to the point that attempting to alter models further than their designed degree of variation by sculpting or cut-fitting pieces, is one of the most fun aspects of the hobby. All I'm saying is, "If the pose is boring enough for me to want to convert it, I'll go find something better." seems to be a misguided sentiment stemming from an apparent lack of interest in the act itself. And I love Wyrd's models, make no mistake. But they are presented in a smaller scale (Not really heroic, AKA exaggerated feature sizes [Hands//Heads]) and with such great quality, that it makes it far more challenging to successfully integrate non-intended features. Unfortunately, at least until I become a much better sculpter, it's a slight hindrance. Luckily their game does not demand having multiples of most models to the point that having repeat models is an issue. As for the original topic? I haven't put my Insidious Madness together yet, but I fully accept the challenge to do so without instructions. I doubt it could possibly be that hard. However, I will say that Wyrd is the first company that produces models which have inspired me to think "Man, hobby tweezers might actually be a good investment.."