admiralvorkraft

That's funny. One of the reasons I like Benny is my regular opponents just don't attack him 😛

Don't depend too much on Distracted - she has ways of using it to her advantage, especially her title. I'd expect to see Auguste, Dade, Gage, Undercover - or at least three of the four.

I'd be fine with just a change requiring you to target the model when declaring the action. Might have to reword Stealth to not make it better Disguised, you're right. I think the current way Rush works is silly but that's neither here or there. What I care about is having positioning choices that matter beyond a top down measure of proximity. Limiting charges seems like the most elegant way to achieve that to me.

If that was the goal then I'd argue they didn't succeed. Combat is across the board cheaper and easier to force in 3e than 2e and the structure of scoring actively punishes crews that don't prioritize combat. The best fix is just allow EoG scoring on schemes to be any turn after the first scheme is revealed and give non-combat (but still interactive) paths to scoring - old school Headhunter was brilliant and interesting where Recover Evidence was the boring version. The only other tweak if like to see if requiring targeting a model in order to charge it, and making the charge a push towards that model. The board gets a lot bigger and more impactful immediately.

A) the war side of the game is by far the weaker side. B) so? I had great, tense games of 2e that were races to ten and they were some of the best games of anything I've ever played. And C) I never said a packet that made for passive games, but a scoring structure that takes pressure off of combat to be the be-all-end-all. I should say, I like the combat in Malifaux fine. It's appropriate as one-of-several-things-going-on. It's just that most of what survives in the meta is exclusively what can force engagement at will so the game devolves into another fine scrum.

Part of the issue when talking about errata or buffing models is that Malifaux is (still) a game with a number of different lines of play. Buffing models tends to make them better at fighting because most people play the game as a big punch-up. My favorite games of Malifaux have very little "action" and lots of fencing around the edges grabbing points. So buffing everything for combat doesn't speak to me or my engagement with the game. Which is not to say don't do it, it's just to say that iterative adjustments will move the game in a direction. To Rufess' point I'm sad that you can beat Nexus1 now by slamming into it with an agro crew. Obviously they needed adjustments but I really appreciated having one crew in the game that shut down that most relentlessly boring line of play. *Shrug* I appreciate the room for creative play in Malifaux. I appreciate that there are keywords that are OP if you follow their lines of play. I think the best thing for balance would be a gg document that's much closer to a 2e Gaining Grounds with more avenues for scoring in more parts of the board and less focus on attrition.

I'm looking to fill out my Witch Hunter keyword, specifically; Spelleaters, Witchling Thralls, a Guild Mage, and a Machine Gunner. I've got most of m2e Ressurectionists available for trade including day glow Kirai.

Yup! And of course if they survive a turn they can push towards a friendly model to break engagement, then run off to scheme.

Winged Plagues are still super squishy, but now they're pretty reliably getting three+ blight out by the time they go.

I tried Hamelin last night into Ivan2 and boy do the new Winged Plagues function as intended. I still wish they had Fly With Me but I didn't regret bringing three.

I like that it takes some of the daisy-chaining out of Lucius 1 builds and gives you another interesting minion to try and maximize instead, but that's part of my 2e nostalgia coming through.

Hamelin is a big winner with the faq/errata. Winged Plagues should now be able to function in their intended role, Hamelin2 can obey his models more freely, and Barbaros is now even better in the keyword he's most useful in.

I like it. Orderlies are a decent little generic scheme runner/support now, and I've been looking at Witch Hunter anyway since Unmasked got teased. Gotta find the 1e Sonnia model...

Ironically? 3.

Naw, I just get slammed with agro plays regardless of the pool because reasons. Or my opponent plays hard denial and I need every tool to try and crack it. If Aionus gets isolated in a game with the folks I play against he's gonna get splattered.

Fill out your keywords, run ten games in each then think about holes you may yet need to fill.

Fair enough! I find after turn 1 I've generally got multiple existential threat type models in my face and can't afford to have him just playing the pass token game, unfortunately.

Or rams on Tick Tock, or Crows on Eventuality, or (rarely) Tomes for Glimpse on Eventuality or Stutter Time...

I've thought about it a bit more and with Tara1 I've always gotten good results with Aionus if I've just assumed he'd need 1-2ss per activation and budgeted accordingly. And he does do game-warpingly good work then, I just don't love how needy he feels 😛

My best (read most fun for me) game of 3e I was tabled save for Yan Lo, my opponent had their whole crew left, and I was able to force a 5-5 tie. Otherwise games are decided by turn 3 and you're playing for diff. Which makes me kinda sad. I'll say one other thing, which is that in 2e I was never at a loss for something to do. Turn 1, set up, turns 2-5 there was scoring to be done that turn. Now it feels like turns one and two are just spinning my wheels, 3 I try to get activation control and score a scheme. It's significantly less fun for me to have two and a half turns of, "nothing useful to do, guess I'll fight about it?" than the dynamic scoring structure of 2e. I understand that there were conscious design choices to force crew engagement - which is why stuff like Deliver the Message and Cursed Object were so great. They forced engagement but also a more interesting (to me) set of problems than apply-combo-to-face.

I think Tara1 is often a stronger choice, but I have way more fun with Tara2 😛

I've been thinking about schemes and strats a bit more. What I want to see boils down to schemes and strats that encourage non-attrition play either by actively discouraging it (the old Cursed Object and Deliver the Message) or by providing incentives to just do other stuff (the old Plant Evidence or Power Ritual). Looking at it in terms of creating more physical areas on the board to score, and also more temporal spaces. I feel like every pool is identical because almost every scheme comes down to "control bottom of turn, take one action with a model that makes scheme x trivial," and it's just boring? M2e allowed way more lines of shutting and denial and I'd like to see some of that come back. Give me more schemes and strats that I can work ahead on, give me more ways to interact with the other crew and the table. And yes, please make scheme crews viable by enabling in-game scoring of the second scheme point.

With both Aionus and Timeless, one of them can generate pass tokens while the other holds activation in order to unbury and capitalize. Time Warp is great when it works, I find it more of an opportunity to jump on than a plan A, but that could certainly be a matter of experience.

He's got the bear trap, give him Create Trap with a trigger to place a Pyre instead. That and Seeking Flames should give him play I think.

I actually like him better in Tara2 😛 33 probably changes the equation a bit but he's just so resource intensive. I've liked a pair of Hunters for Glimpse built in, access to positives, and a TN-less unbury. I guess that's basically Obliterations big leveling factor though, everybody needs tns and suits, no one generates resources, and there are (basically) no tactical actions in the crew. And their mobility is all tempo-locked.