Jump to content

LeperColony

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Acceptable

About LeperColony

  • Rank
    Minion

Recent Profile Visitors

1,012 profile views
  1. LeperColony

    Thoughts after the first game

    Last night I managed to get my first game in, it was a single-commander King's Empire v. Burning Man. I taught, two other people played. One with Malifaux experience, one without. My overall impression is highly positive, and in a lot of ways it reminds me of how I felt when first encountering Malifaux. Game play was fast, easy to to teach, and the fact that all models can only take a single point of damage really adds a lot of tension to Penetration flips, even when Assets are involved to be flipped or scrapped. Part of this was that, unlike Malifaux, there were far fewer DF/WP triggers (in fact, we didn't encounter any). I'm sure rules bloat will change that in the future, but for now it works. Titans are visually impressive, but they don't (or didn't) dominate the game. And in fact, by pricing, they're not supposed to. So I found their dynamic different from large models in other games (like Knights in 40k), and I liked how they worked. The two factions had different play styles, and the balance seemed decent (though again, these were only single commander, and I built both armies to be pretty basic). Of course, we also did a few things incorrectly. Most significantly, we didn't notice the limit of spending one token of each type per activation. My biggest complaint was that the rulebook was not as clear or helpful as it could have been. There is a consistent failure to provide consolidated information. To give one example, I had known that Reinforcement tokens could be used to flip assets. But I was having trouble finding it, because it isn't mentioned in the Reinforcement part of the Upkeep, or in the Reinforcement entry in the token's section. This is just one of several similar organizational/consolidation issues. The lack of clarity regarding the Modification step of duels is problematic. When do you spend tactics tokens to flip additional cards? Is it during the Flip step? I thought maybe it would be, but the Flip step specifically says "flip one card," and it's the Modification section where it says tokens are spent. But did they mean non-tactics tokens? Again, a little clarity would have been appreciated. Malifaux has a very detailed set of rules governing flips, cheating, triggers, etc. TOS needs it too. Along similar lines, TOS only provides detailed rules for flips as part of duels. But what about flips that aren't duels? We had an asset where a player could flip two cards, and if either was a Ram, damage was reduced to 0, but it was unclear to us if TOS allowed you to cheat. We decided you could, but we may have been wrong. I'm personally not a fan of having made the black joker less impactful. True, you can't cheat it, but if you are flipping multiple cards, you can select something else. If you really can spend tactics cards to flip during Modification, that means you can just ignore the black joker for a single tactics tokens? Seems anti-climactic. There were a few component quibbles too. We would have liked if the tactics tokens had "Activated" printed on the other side, so you could use them to track activated models. Seems more efficient and elegant than repeating "tactics" on both sides. We also thought it was a little irksome that TOS fate decks, which after all are advertised as being useful for Malifaux or TOS, didn't have wound pips. I mean, why? But taken as a whole, and with due allowances for the fact that we played a small learning game, TOS was a good experience, and we're all looking forward to more in the future!
  2. LeperColony

    Malifaux Shows

    The Knick is excellent just to get a sense of what 1900 was like. The Alienist is a little before Malifaux, but still applicable. Neither have supernatural elements, but both are good shows. The Knick especially.
  3. LeperColony

    Slow Player solutions ?

    I think a lot depends on how much of it is the player, and how much the game. Some people are just slow, and there's not really anything you can do about it (also, some players may have medical or psychological conditions that makes play a little more challenging). And it becomes more about either accepting the timing realities or not playing with them. Even things like playing smaller games doesn't generally help that much in such circumstances. Also, some slow players are sensitive to that status, and may not appreciate even kind-hearted attempts to move things along. Then there's the game. Malifaux is an easy enough game to teach. I find the basic concepts pretty intuitive, the use of suits and flips, action points, all fairly basic. But, where things become complicated is in the units. Every model has its own card with its own special abilites, then there are upgrades and the strategies and schemes... It adds up fast. Smaller games may help. 25ss, henchmen crews, etc. If they're new to Malifaux, maybe try to steer them towards the more straight-forward masters. In my experience, the beaters tend to be easier for new players than support or control types. Themed crews may be another time saver, because often they have overlap in terms of abilities, so there's a little less to learn. Restricting the pool of strategies and schemes may be helpful or, if your local group is really just about killing stuff (and I've encountered more than a few like that), there's nothing wrong with junking them entirely and just doing TDM. Keeping terrain rules simple is another way to cut down on potential time sinks. Now, I admit, I'm a player who does find dragging games a little annoying. I don't play games to save time, so I don't mind lengthy games, but I do tend to find dead time annoying. So I try to be a good example. When I host games, I make sure there's plenty of markers, tape measures, rules and errata, etc., so that searching for incidentals doesn't take time. When it's not my turn, I try to figure out what I want to do when it will be. This is one of my major pet peeves. I understand circumstances change, and so sometimes you need to re-evaluate or spend a little more thought on your turn, but in general I find you can often have a good sense of what you want to do while the other player is acting, so that you can just do it. This doesn't help so much if your opponent is the slow player, but it does reduce the overall length and it may subtly encourage your companion to speed up.
  4. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    I have no idea where this effort fixation arose, but yes, it is more effort to make two cards than one. That's sort of the point. In a universe that greatly expands cross faction availability, multiple cards would allow you to tailor the way models act when they are hired out of faction, for balance purposes. Now, you also get the ability to perhaps reflect changing lore (as @necroon mentioned) or slightly alter mechanics between factions to fit themes, make the two versions very divergent (if you so wanted, like a Jekyll and Hyde thing), etc. But to whatever extent you develop a multi-card model, obviously it's more effort than simply making a single card available to more than one faction. I'm really not sure why you keep trying to come back to this, since it's not really anything in contention. You haven't gained any of the "end results" I've suggested, because the only end result I've suggested is another method to make a single model available to more than one faction. I've then compared the sales implications of a model available to more than one faction through one method (single card) to another (two cards) and noted, in both cases, it's a single model available to two factions. What you're trying to do is somehow say that if a model has two cards, it must necessarily replace (or merge or whatever) two models, and that's false. There's almost an unlimited number of ways to design a model (even with two cards), and again, as the goal is to make a model available to multiple factions, that objective is in no way related to "merging" models or whatever situation you've come up with. I'll notice already twice I've provided the analogy of Yin as a single card vs a two card model and noted in both cases: Two factions get access to 1 model. Same sales implications. And you've declined to try to distinguish the two cases from each other twice now. Instead, you try to imagine up scenarios where multiple cards are replacing models, or somehow combining them. For two cards to be worse from a sales standpoint than one card, which has been your contention, you have to demonstrate that somehow two card Yin will sell less (or result in less sales overall) than one card Yin, as an inherent matter of having two cards.
  5. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    Not really though, because what you've done is simply assume that multiple cards means a loss of sales, but multiple factions on one card doesn't, arbitrarily. Multiple cards is not "combining two models into one." Functionally what it does is provide two (or more) hiring choices to two (or more) factions, just like a dual faction model. I fail to see what supports the assumption that if they made a model with two stat cards, that somehow means they didn't make a model the had planned to create anyway. Just look at how you've had to construct your analogy. Rather than viewing the dual card model as a multi-faction model, you've assumed it was created to combine two models into one, thereby replacing a model. But that's not the function of dual faction models. Dual (or multi, if they go that route) faction models expand the hiring pool by saying "here, Gremlins, you can hire this Neverborn." The proper analogy to multi-cards isn't two unrelated models like the Oiran/Performer mash up, it's Yin the Penangalan. Yin: One model. Available to two factions. Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it. Double card Yin: One model. Available to two factions. Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it. Now, where sales reduction may come into play is if buying a multi-faction model crowds out a single faction (in other words, I'd rather have Yin than Shikome). But this is a dynamic inherent in any dual faction model, regardless of why it's available to other factions. And, in fact, to the extent that models compete with each other economically, it's actually true of any model from the standpoint of a consumer who only buys what they specifically need, rather than a general collector.
  6. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    This may be a dynamic inherent in making models dual faction. It doesn't mean making it dual faction by supplying multiple cards reduces sales, which has been the point of the discussion up till now. This thread presupposes the expansion of cross faction availability, so naturally I've been discussing matters in that context. If your comparing sales of a single model available to multiple factions (through whatever method) versus the sale of two separate models, to me that's an entirely different conversation.
  7. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    That's probably a matter of interpretation. If one model is available to two (or more) factions, I personally would consider it "dual (or multi) faction," whether or not it is available because a single card is Faction A/Faction B or if the model comes with two cards, one A and the other B. EDIT: To clarify, I count a faction as "dual faction" if it is available to masters of two factions without other restrictions. Models that are available due to Characteristics ties like Showgirls (which is actually how I think dual factioning should generally work) I regard differently.
  8. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    Because this is a thread about expanding the roster of models available to multiple factions? Providing a single model with different cards for different factions would be a way of expanding the number of models available to other factions. In fact, it could even be retro-active, in that you could issue a new faction card of an existing model.
  9. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    I think it's useful to keep the various issues in this thread somewhat distinct. The last few posts dealt with the contention that somehow making models with multiple cards (rather than simply dual faction) would somehow result in a loss of sales vis-a-vis dual faction, but I think now we should be able to agree that's not likely to be true. Or, at least, if you still maintain it is, I'd like to hear how you're coming to that conclusion still. Now, I never advanced any position regarding the relative effort involved in making two cards, as opposed to dual faction. But I would tend to agree with you that it would involve more work to develop models with multiple cards, if for no other reason than that it is virtually no effort to make something dual faction. However, it is easy to overstate the degree of effort involved. For instance, some units may have different cards, but may differ in very minor ways. One could imagine a marker support model with two cards - one Arcanist based on/generating scrap markers, the other Resser based on/generating corpse markers, but the abilities themselves are identical (excepting, of course, references to the appropriate marker). On the other extreme, the two cards may have absolutely nothing to do with each other, having different stat lines, abilities, attacks, tactical actions, cost, etc... Most would likely lie in the middle, where the models share similar roles and concepts, but differ in details.
  10. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    I don't think dual faction masters are as much of a problem, from a balance oversight point of view, because I think Wyrd probably invests a good deal more effort on masters than other models (but then again, there's still Sandeep...). Again, this is not to say that dual factioning is bad or that I'm somehow opposed to it. But this is a thread that presupposes the increase in the mechanic. Given a meta where cross faction hiring is more common, I would want preferably to anchor it through Characteristic ties, which does limit the possibilities and I think would encourage/support theme, but another option would be to make multiple stat lines for different factions.
  11. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    I'm not sure I would either. As I indicated in my original comment, I think these kind of cross faction options should be funneled through the Characteristics. I am concerned about proliferating otherwise unrestrained dual (or even multi) faction models, because I think they hold the potential for balance issues. So if I had to choose between a universe where there were many more cross faction options otherwise unrestrained (by Characteristic requirements, for instance) or a universe where models had different versions tailored to multiple factions, I'd choose the latter.
  12. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    It certainly applies to dual faction. I buy Yin, the Penangalan. Sometimes I use him as Resser, sometime as TT, but it's still one model. Now, suppose I buy "double card" Yin (for which we are assuming the simple dual faction version doesn't exist), with one card version Resser, the other TT. And yet, still, one model. Where's the lost sale? The "advantage" I'm highlighting with potentially making different versions of the same model for multiple factions is the ability to balance that model vis-a-vis the options within the particular factions to which it is made available. One potential headache with expanding availability of models over multiple factions is the potential of handling balance of abilities, given the vast number of potential permutations. It's what makes me hesitant of increasing the availability of multi-faction options without some kind of planning constraints that help with balance (for instance, Characteristics to a certain extend side-step this, because when you set a model's Characteristics, you're narrowing the field of potential combinations). And sure, if you want to imagine a possible convoluted scenario like you described just to attempt to confuse yourself, you certainly can. But you can equally ensure the model operates under strict enough hiring conditions to preclude them. Like most things, it's a matter of execution. At any rate, my preferred method of cross faciton availability is to base it such opportunities Characteristics, because I think it's potentially more thematic that way, and also by restricting the hiring pool to a known condition, I think it will help with balance. My comment on the possibility of offering different cards for the same model regards the prospect of a universe where more unrestrained dual faction exist. Not that dual faction models are necessarily overpowered in any way. But rather, I tend to think the potential for balance issues increases when you expand the number of possible crew combinations.
  13. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    It doesn't necessarily lead to fewer sales overall, unless you believe all dual faction options lead to reduced sales, because two different stat cards on the same model for two different factions would have the exact same impact as one model being available to two factions. In either case, the "alternate" faction has access to an additional model from another faction. And even then, you'd have to show that the double card model were crowding out other sales (as a substitution good, in economic terms) rather than simply being another model picked up. In fact, I think if you look at miniature wargaming over all, historically, "alliance mechanics" seem popular to gaming companies in part because they allow players to dabble in other factions, potentially increasing sales by exposing already committed customers to new segments of the product line. It could potentially add to confusion since it would increase the overall unit count in the game, and it would also associate two stat lines with the same model. However, it wouldn't prevent you from telling what was hired "just by looking" since the faction of the controlling master would clearly define which version it was.
  14. LeperColony

    Ways to inter-mix factions

    Dual faction is attractive from a certain point of view, but expanding the model pool further (in terms of availability to masters) brings even more balance headaches, because you can get combinations that were potentially never intended. I'm wondering if instead there may be some value in multiple cards for the same model. One card for Faction A, and one for Faction B. So the model is the same (which coincidentally may increase sales of a model by enlarging the potential uses, and at the same time may save players money, because they may be able to use the model in more ways/games), but it is essentially two different units. I think dual faction should be funneled through Characteristics instead. I think it's more harmonious from a thematic point of view, and probably easier to handle balance if you can narrow the range of possibilities during design.
  15. LeperColony

    Sandeep: Considerations for Errata

    I probably shouldn't have said "significantly reduces," just reduces. My point is as a matter of design, I don't like stacking permanent abilities along with conditional ones in that way, unless it's the core mechanic of the model.
×