LeperColony

Currently the app does not automatically add a crew's replace options into the reference cards section, and some summon options are also missed. For instance, if one model can replace into another, or has effects to cause replaces (like the Death Marshal Recruiter), those replace options don't show in reference automatically. Similarly, some summon options (particularly from Demise effects) also slipped through. No doubt this is because there are a large number of these, and they have to be located by hand. So I figured we could have a thread that lists the replace options to make them easier to add. I'll start off with a couple: Model - Card that should go into reference Arcanist Coryphee - Mannequin Coryphee Duet - Mannequin Bayou Two Gremlins in a Ghillie Suit (Upgrade) - Bayou Gremlin Explorer's Society Guild Austringer - Trained Raptor Death Marshal Recruiter - Death Marshal Mounted Guard - Guard Patrol Neverborn Outcast Resser Ten Thunders There are bound to be many more. If anyone responds with some, I'll add it to the list.

For what it's worth, the FAQ even says "target takes 2/3/4 damage and is pushed 2" to be two separate effects. Absent explicit text linking two changes in game state (like "models damaged by this attack suffer Injured +1"), I'm not sure they are ever dependent on each other.

No words were added or twisted. I used the actual text of the effect. The rules for actions tell us to resolve the effects in order. The action describes two effects. 1. Unbury. 2. Remove marker, optional charge. We know from the rules on bury that models that are not buried ignore unburied. So the flow chart would be: 1. Ignore unbury. 2. Remove marker, optional charge. Ricochet/My Loyal Servant isn't relevant to this at all. Wyrd either stealth nerfed Nekima rather than own up to it with an errata, OR, Wyrd had always intended Nekima's ability to work basically as though it said "another (other than this model)" but in trying to issue a FAQ for the way they had always wanted that ability to work, they mistakenly broke all anothers. At any rate, it has nothing to do with the current situation. Whether something is one or multiple effects is admittedly unclear. That's why I said if the action wrote "and" someone "could argue" that the marker removal and charge were the same effect as the unbury. But even if it said "then" within the same sentence, someone may still argue they're the same effect. In fact, unless one effect is explicitly made dependent on another (for instance, "models damaged by this attack suffer Burning +1"), I'm not sure it's possible to ever definitively link effects. Are the damage and the healing on Relic Blade the same effect? I don't think so, even though they're in the same sentence. Though in any event, I should have been more clear, because it's not just that "then" is used, but that it's two separate sentences and "then" is used. Then has temporal connotations. Do something. After that, do something else. Now, going by intent, I think Wyrd meant for the action to only be permissible while buried. Because otherwise, you could get rid of a marker from anywhere, then charge. And that doesn't really feel thematically consistent with the action. It should probably be read to say "this action can only be taken while buried." But unless Wyrd says that's what they intended, since the text of the action is broken into multiple independent sentences, and since "then" establishes a temporal relationship between the effects, it's hard for me to see a textual justification to deny Bete from taking the action while not buried.

I think the "then" is quite useful, as it identifies the two effects as separate. We know from the rules that models that are not buried ignore unbury effects (pg 33). If instead of being two separate sentences, it had been one sentence joined with "and," you could argue that the marker removal and charge were dependent on unburying (or, in other words, they were part of the unbury effect). Since it says "then," we resolve the second effect after resolving the first. Since Bete isn't buried, she ignores the unbury effect. Then, the marker is removed and she can charge.

You brought McMourning! I still haven't tried that list from the other thread, but I hope to someday soon.

He kind of reminds me of late 2E Nico. Abusive resource generation, solid summon options, and great support pieces. In my opinion, Bayou two card needs a nerf. Maybe it should do a point of damage if you use it and still lose.

In @Plaag's defense, although he can come off a bit blunt on the forums, English isn't his first language, and if you watch any of his games he seems to be a very affable opponent. In my local meta I've seen the Fire Golem do some good work, but we're definitely not top podium players.

Seconded!

What did you think of Jonathan? From my admittedly limited experience, his main value in a Basse crew over a first class versatile/OOK beater is the fact that he can set up forward with the rest of the gang since he also has Home on the Range. Whereas if you take a better model like the Pale Rider or the Brutal Emissary, it can't. Reading your report it seems like you struggled to really get top value from him. A guild steward may even have done nearly as much as he did. If he had Extended Reach instead of Disguised, I think then there'd be a fair argument in his favor. I don't believe simply giving him a 3rd AP is the answer, but maybe a trigger on Kick up Dust to do a free Stoic Nod.

Nice looking army. Sad to see another TOS player raise the white flag.

While I can't claim any expertise to answer whether Asura is viable, I do have a Reva list I want to try her in that could be fun.

He got a pretty severe nerf, and then to add insult to injury they bumped his cost up. Not sure about that one.

Is Reva always bad, or is she bad because Kaeris exists and uses Pyres better?

I see the Dead Rider being taken by better Resser players than myself. But when I look at his cost, I rarely feel like I see something in his kit that's so compelling. How do you all use the Dead Rider?

I keep struggling to use the Lampad effectively. I just played Reva yesterday and managed to win, but I don't feel like I got really any value from the Lampad I included. How do you all tend to use it?

Every ability in the game is meant to be used as efficiently as possible. By this reasoning, nothing is overtuned because everything is a tool in the game to be employed optimally. But the reality is that Malifaux is an engine of immense complexity and interactivity. It's impossible to know the implications of how all the pieces tie together, and only repeated experience on a very large scale is capable of illuminating trends. Games respond to these trends by making balance changes. Now, you may believe Focus as is doesn't need a change, and that's a reasonable opinion to have. But the mere fact that an ability was included and presumed to be used at maximum value doesn't mean the ability can't be above the curve. It's undeniably true that the better the model, the more useful the focus as a general rule. However, what this analysis fails to capture is the fact that you also have to look at the implications of focused attacks on the targeted model. Five severe damage is not that rare. Certainly not limited to top beaters. But many lower cost models have five or less health, especially in the 4-6 (or less) stone range. Defenses are important on all models, of course, but they are often a dividing line between useful and never-takes at this price range. And most valued of all are those defenses that represent the prospect of increased action requirements to kill the defender. HTK, armor, HTW, etc. But also, the very disproportionate value of Focus is another reason why I am in favor of a to any duel or damage/heal flip change. Because then Focus is of increased utility to models other than beaters. It also makes interactions like Terrifying far less binary. It's not just "how much ruthless do you have." It also improves consistency. Why can you focus a direct fire and not a shockwave? They're both attacks, but one is opposed and one isn't, so you can't focus the latter. What are the developers' goals for Focus? Is there a specific reason why it includes some attacks excludes others? Is there a reason why (other an edition inertia) the is to duel and damage? Right now, I don't know that I have a strong grasp on what I believe the developers' intent is for why Focus works the way it does, and that is in no small part because, to me, Focus is currently serving an oversized and inconsistent role in the game.

It wouldn't have much, if any, appreciable impact on summoning or any other Once Per Activation simple duel that was critical, for the plain reason that those duels are already taken only when the player can be virtually (or, when the BJ is in hand, actually) guaranteed. Who summons hoping they top deck the suited high card, with no other plan for cheating or stoning? I honestly do not understand what this means or its significance, so maybe you could clarify. My point is that the game assumes the most likely outcome for an attack is min damage. This is a mathematically derived consequence of the rules. And since it is the most likely outcome, the resilience of models is (or at least should be) plotted against their performance against this baseline. Do other results happen? Yes. Do they matter? Yes. Should they be taken into consideration? Of course. But any starting point has to be the expected outcomes, not the outliers. What the current iteration of focus does, along with ways to easily and efficiently proliferate it, is increase the frequency with which defending models will face higher-than-expected damage values.

I agree with this 100%. The game needs offense to be more efficient than defense as a rule. Otherwise it'd be too hard to make progress. But the issue with Focus as it currently stands is that it is too efficient, too easily stackable, and it reduces the effectiveness of moderate cost minions. If you look at the best 4-6 stone models, many of them are well regarded precisely because of how hard it is to take them down. By making Focus less efficient, it'd increase the utility of those minions that don't have so many native defenses. My most common uses of Focus defensively is when I expect the model will die if I fail, sort of a use-it-or-lose-it. Defensive triggers, particularly ones that go off whether I win or lose the duel, are another instance where I consider it. But otherwise, I much prefer to save it for offensive use because it is so much more efficient.

It's a function of math. Any game is going to be focused around the most likely outcome. How else do you decide how valuable wounds are, unless you ascribe their value at a baseline that begins at the most likely result? In fact, we see on the forums during model evaluation people talk about how many hits something can survive based at min values (usually min 3, looking at how efficient a topline beater will kill). Improving defensive tech is not necessarily a bad thing, especially since otherwise the answer to a lot of defenses are binary counters. Focus can already be used defensively in most instances anyway. Allowing it to extend to the few it can't is much less powerful than having focus give to attack and damage. Models that currently don't benefit as much from Focus would then get more value from it, as they can use it in ways they couldn't before. Fundamentally, if you believe Focus is currently balanced, then no change is going to seem sensible to you. And that's fine if that's your opinion. But if you believe Focus is problematic, then that's when it becomes useful to look at some of the available options.

It sounds like you might want to focus on Dreamer for a few games. Really try to reduce how often your models activate without a plan. If you don't really care what a model does, that's an indication that a misplay was potentially made at some point. Because the number of activations you get in a Malifaux game are actually quite restrictive. So any time you're like "well, I'll just walk and focus" because you have nothing better to do, that is often (though not always) a sign that the model is out of position, poorly deployed, etc. This isn't to say walking and focusing is wrong. It's not. There are many times it is the right play. For instance, if you're trying to control the distance between models, if you're focusing in expectation of a specific pay off, etc. It's when you do it because you don't have any other idea that there may be a misplay. There is a school of thought that whoever walks least is more likely to win, because that leaves them with more actions to do other things. Obviously such a brightline rule isn't going to hold, and the people who express such thoughts don't mean it to such an extreme. But the point is that learning how to control where the interactions occur, and who had to spend more actions to get there, is an important skill. Finally, my last piece of advice would be to minimize how often you offer models up for "free." Try to always have some kind of defense for everything, whether it's inherent in the model, terrain features, friendly fire penalties, even just plain distance. Anything you can do to increase the investment required to impact your models is going to be helpful. Now, I should say that I am not talking as a top tier player. But these little things have helped me improve, so hopefully they might be of some use to you too!

There are so many interactions in Malifaux, so doubtless a few cases could be found where it might border on the abusive. But in the main, what I expect it would do is increase the utility of focus to moderate cost support models and improve the reliability of nice-to-have but not critical mid/late turn actions. Ride With Me, for instance, if it happens later in the turn when you can't cheat it, or your only cards left are severes. Any truly critical action, like summoning, is only taken when you can virtually guarantee success anyway. If you're summoning off the top with no other plan, then either the summon doesn't matter that much, or you're in such a bad state that it's hard to see a meager saving the day.

How would you describe your opponent's play style? What are some lists he's fielded that you've had issues with? Are there any schemes or strats you know to be difficult for you specifically? Malifaux is very situational, so I think more details may help make any suggestions more relevant!

I'm not a fan of focus condition resetting. I much prefer the change where you can use Focus as a to almost any duel or damage/heal flip. In my opinion, focus definitely needs a nerf. The game is balanced around the belief that min damage is the expected outcome of most attacks. Efficient focus stacking completely overturns that model, and without an appreciation for that fact, future changes will likely increase model wound counts or proliferate things like HTW in order to make them live as long as expected. Removing the to opposed duels and damage helps address this issue. However, if you then expand Focus's use beyond opposed duels, all of a sudden it acquires a lot more flexibility. Focus on Terrifying. Focus on tactical actions. Even summoning. to heals. None of these uses seem broken to me, and a give-and-take solution to Focus is preferable to a straight nerf.

Need to be careful about your low WP models getting grabbed with Presto-Chango. Also, if Colette does end up playing aggressive, remember her trigger isn't built in for WP, and she can't use it at all for MV. I agree that the Drowned could be nice. If you can stick Distracted on Colette, Mecharachnid or the Duet, it will reduce their efficiency.

One issue with Focus as it currently exists is that it leads to behaviors that makes the defenses on some models actually counterproductive. Performers are a good example. They're 5 health and Manipulative. If you're going to spend time attacking one, Focus and attack is, in most circumstances, the right move whether they have activated or not if removing the model is important. Because as was mentioned, the true value to Focus is getting the damage flip cheatable. Manipulative makes it much more obvious that Focus attacking is the right play over two attacks, because often your opponent is looking at how to hit first, and how to kill second. --- Other people have mentioned this, so it's in no way my idea, but I think Focus should be changed to a to pretty much any duel or damage/heal flip, rather than affecting only opposed duels and having the apply to both the duel and any damage. Another slight Wyrd may want to consider is having Distracted cancel Focus and vice versa. They wouldn't even need to change Distracted. There's no reason why conditions have to be exact mirror opposites to cancel each other.