edopersichetti

On 3/23/2019 at 11:28 AM, Tors said:

Kill candy, block los, use your own pushes or just take the 1 point dmg... i wouldn't even rate it "strong", just rather situational useful.

Not every thing needs a flip, not every combination needs to be changed. 

Thank you. I think people have to really think long and hard before crying "broken" - perhaps learn to deal with it first? Too many cries of "broken" are what caused half the models in the game to be nerfed...

Might I add that, as you imply, 1 point of damage is hardly the end of the world. It would be different if it stacked, as it used to do with old Pandora - but it seems the designers intentionally changed this (another instance of the "broken" crying syndrome).

I actually don't see the point of Misery at all, seems like a lot of setup for a single point of damage, it is at best a little "extra". Perhaps if they removed the Once per Activation it could be something to play around, but as it is, it seems pretty useless to me.

3 hours ago, trikk said:

Have you played her in the beta? She's considered top 2-3 AR by almost everyone.

Well in the beta some things were different, like the Fade Away ability/trigger, which now is worse IMHO. Even then, she felt underwhelming to me - it is probably because I still remember all the things she used to be able to do in M2E. Now she looks very flat: she has 3 actions just to move people, no prompt, no SS manipulation, no summoning doves, no interact as 0...she used to be a crew enabler, now she is just a...crew pusher?
I don't know, perhaps her crew works around her, but last time I tried her in the beta she felt very underwhelming - I don't know that an extra (0) action can really make such a difference.

The art, very pretty. The stat card, very underwhelming. But hey, at least it will look good in the display case

4 hours ago, Davie said:

You need to shift away from M2E-Paradigms. Once you stop comparing M3E rules to M2E rules you'll have a better time enjoying M3E.

So basically I agree with what @WWHSD said

That's the thing though - M2E was amazing, M3E looks just a lot less exciting. It's hard to shift away from paradigms - basically you're asking me to forget my previous gaming experience, one that I enjoyed very much. It's like being handed a Toyota after having driven a Ferrari for the last three years...yeah good car, but can you really expect me to be content?

I think toning down things makes the game just less "wonky", fun and entertaining than before. It takes away from Malifaux that "spark" which was given by the overall unpredictability, and things like a sudden Red Joker coming out on a negative flip and ruining your day - now +1 damage? Who even cares?

At least, my 2 cents. Plus hey, we don't all have to be fan boys - it's ok to be skeptical about things you love.
There are some things I like about this change, and I make no mystery of it, and in fact I'm happy to praise them. One of those is keyword hiring - it's a good idea and makes things more thematic, it was long overdue. Other include the fixes to vertical elevation, terrain, LoS, shadow etc. - all of it was a bit unclear in M2E. Other I don't agree with, and I'm equally direct in mentioning them. Personally I didn't see the need for the general toning down, is all. Even changing playstyles is a cool idea - but not if suddenly my master can do half the things he could do before, and do them worse. Again, just my 2 cents

5 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I suspect that if you pick up any M3E master and expect them to play like their M2E version did, you'll probably end up very disappointed. The Marcus and Rasputina that we saw at GenGon definitely looked like they would play much different than they did in M2E. 

Lol that might be my problem. I love M2E and I recognize there were a few things to be smoothed out, but I didn't see any need for such a massive overhaul across the board. I'll definitely give M3E a shot, but right now it looks a lot less fun that what we've been playing so far - that's all.

Allow me to be the Devil's Advocate.

Terrifying is now what Manipulative used to be. Definitely a weaker ability...I realize Paralyzed is gone (sad face), so some changed needed to be made, but overall is a weaker risk/reward thing (I wonder what happened to Manipulative...). I like more high risk/high reward tactics - it makes the game less predictable and more entertaining. Now it feels like "oh, I failed - not a big deal", which is hardly a threat, more an annoyance.

Also, the change to Misery is pretty bad. This does not "preserve the feel" at all - playing Pandora is going to feel a lot different if you remove the option of papercut death which was one of her signature feats. She already lost her other signature feat - Paralyze. LOL.
A single damage which can occur normally up to 6 times (cards in hand) is not really "punishing". Most of the times the enemy model will be either further away (it's 4", used to be 6") or have enough health to completely not care about this ability, and cheat as he pleases. And no, it's not "hard to get too upset over the change", it's actually really easy if you are a Pandora player. Of course it makes people playing against her happy, but this to me just feels like watering things down because the opponent couldn't handle them. But I understand the new direction for this game is simplification, and appealing to new blood, who perhaps doesn't want to work that hard to solve a problem. It's a shame - the risk is that the game will feel more dull for expert players.

Overall I'm happy Carver is now a playable character, and he's not a bad model at all, just not that badass, as @Jesy Blue mentioned. @WWHSD The Wp duels seems kinda fundamental, but it has a stat of 5 which is mediocre. So passing that means he's less impressive; of course, the crew might do this job for him, but that requires a bit of a setup and it detracts from him being able to operate well independently. The attack is good of course but I'd rather have min damage 3 without relying on a trigger, as all decent beaters, especially at that points cost. I understand overall power level is going down and min damage 2 is now mainstream - again, this is a pity - so maybe that's acceptable now. Also, engagement range is 1" (again this seems now mainstream), Execute only costs a single card...it's like, every single aspect of the game has been toned down. It's a bit sad. For a comparison, a M2E Executioner is 1 SS cheaper and is way more threatening.

I'm a big fan of Wyrd and I love Malifaux a lot, but in all honesty, so far I'm quite disappointed but what I have seen.

On 10/16/2018 at 4:54 PM, cbtb11235813 said:

Lots of things are changing in 3e. Agonizing over one particular change mentioned in a blurb without any context as to the rest of the game isn't particularly effective. There is a large group of people in the beta all working very hard to make sure everyone, including Pandora, is balanced  

...hopefully she's also fun to play!

1 hour ago, Amayasu said:

Hi Kai, If you've applied previously but still not gained access, do you need to apply again, or are you already in the pool for this new test?

+1 for this.

Sure, but I mean, in comparison the ability is definitely weaker. And yes I do believe that there will be a general leveling down towards less damage, shorter engagement ranges etc. but in fact this is one of my main concerns.

For sure we will have to see what her other abilities and attacks are, but I feel since many of the things that defined her are going away (negative modifiers, paralyze, Wp duels etc.) she's running out of options pretty quickly...at the very least, she'll be something very different from what we were used to.

This wait is excruciating.

Hi fellow Neverborners!

I'm trying to figure out how the faction will evolve in M3E and I've seen the other post, but I'm in particular concerned about Pandora so I decided to write its own post about her. 

It looks like Wyrd is trying to shift back (as seems the case for most masters) to her original focus, the Mood Swings. That's all good with me, it was a system that really wasn't working very well and it'd be nice to see it function properly. However, what is gonna happen to Misery? From the little excerpt on the Wyrd website it reads "...the Misery ability, which damages enemy models who Cheat Fate within its aura".

So now instead of taking damage for losing Wp duels, the damage happens when cheating fate. This is an interesting change, but feels like a de-powering (again, as it seems the case for most masters) since normally the opponent is only going to cheat fate up to 6 times (= number of cards in hand). Maybe not even all of those times he's going to be next to Pandora (or whoever else has Misery, I assume at least Sorrows). M2E Pandora and her crew could generate many more Wp duels than that, and Misery had the potential to be truly a weapon for inflicting damage. Now this ability seems less useful.

Also, will the damage still "stack" as before (it didn't really stack, but was 1 per source) ? Otherwise, from "less useful" Misery will become "pretty useless". So, the opponent can occasionally take a single damage when cheating next to Misery models? It seems a pretty marginal effect...most of the times, opponent will not even care...

As we know, Paralyze is gone and its replacements are much watered down. For example Distracted only gives in one direction (when targeting enemy models, but not when targeted by) and slowly ticks away...whereas Pandora used to be able to give full-fledged to enemy models. So am I right to be concerned about Pandora being overall quite weakened in M3E?

On 8/20/2018 at 4:29 PM, phloog said:

All of this is likely moot in terms of me not playing anymore.

Unless I can find someone who wants to buy my entire collection of hundreds of assembled but unpainted Malifaux models, I'm going to have them to play...so unless somebody wants a great deal on an instant Malifaux collection, the REAL question is whether I play 2e or 3e.

+1. I don't think many people will actually entirely quit playing, but many might just decide to stay with 2e. Personally, right now I'm oriented towards 2e...neither me nor my meta are particularly excited by this edition change, judging by the various tidbits of information that we have at this point.

9 minutes ago, Nikshe said:

I just LOVE TheoryMalifaux. Good theorist can discuss Malifaux without any information about terrain, strategy and schemes at all. Also, neither fractions nor Masters are interesting for skilled theorist, and no models are named. Pure Malifaux with no distraction.

I agree - this is pretty exciting. We love theorizing about our favorite game

It's the only thing we can do while we wait for the actual beta to begin - this, or eating our knuckles will we get to the bone

9 minutes ago, Zebo said:

In fact, the reallity of the game should be 5 x 10ss models + master (6) versus 2 x 10ss models + 7 x 4ss models plus master (10)

In the first turn the 10ss crew does nothing, because of no targets in range, an when they finish then the 10ss models of the big crew can easily make a alpha strike and kill at least 1 enemy model. 

Second turn starts with a crew with 4 x 10ss models and a master versus a crew with full potential and twice activations. Depending of the situation, the game can be already lost or only quite difficult for the elite crew. 

This is the scenario without pass tokens...with pass tokens, the (6) crew will just pass and wait for positioning, then kill one or two of the 4ss models which, I presume, will be rather easy to do...and go from there. It's all hypothetical anyway but it looks plausible to me.

I mean, I get it, right now people are angry because activations are so important that crews with more activations tend to do better and elite crews are outnumbered - and elite crews are those that tend to attract newer players anyway - the big, mean, kick-ass looking crews. But that is in the natural order of things (ANY wargame has, say, a horde of goblins vs a small contingent of elf swordsmen, and the like), and I think pass tokens evening out the numbers will give an upper hand to elite crews that they do not need...because they are elite already! If you allow a crew composed of models 7SS and up to have the same tempo as one composed of 5SS and down...the better stats and difference in abilities (higher damage output, range etc.), at least from a logical point of view, should swing the battle in favor of the elite crew pretty clearly.

I'm not saying pass tokens are bad per se, just that they're a slippery slope and hard to get right - so I'm curious to try them out, hoping there is some balancing mechanics (not for free, or not two in a row, or something) and hoping Wyrd gets it right. But at the moment I'm with @Fetid Strumpet on this one - i.e. I am let's say "skeptical".

4 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I cannot understand all that concerns about pass tokens...

Finally, having more bodies on the grounds means usually having more wounds and more actions (let's enter in the new wording mindset from now... ) than the opponent. Sure more models at the same cost means those ones will be more fragile and less performant than a single very expensive one, obviously. But one of the main problem in M2e was exactly how powerful out-activation (OA) was. Entire branches of ruleset and design space were closed to let the game balance OA in some way. All the GG2018 revolved around limiting OA as away to be OP. And again a relevant part of the summoning problem was caused by the OA. This forced the game in a state where, or to be competitive you absolutely needed to build a crew around summoning/OA, or the devs were forced to create patches that hinder in a way or another the game design. Examples? Stuffed piglets were nerfed so that they became unuseful at their actual cost, and the only reason was OA. Their "extinction" meant also the pigapult was pushed out of the game. OA forbid to create very cheap models, since the ony existence to get a single activation would make those models OP, while at a slightly higher cost they suddenly become unplayable...

What's this pass mechanic, from what we know/guess at the moment? If the opponent outnumber you by 5 models, you get 5 pass tokens. It's easy to guess you can spend one token to pass your turn to activate a model. The opponent still have some activations in a row, but at last you decide when he will get those activations. So this will avoid that a player can use all his insignificant activations at the beginning of the turn in order of score or do whetever he want in the end of the tun, well knowing there will be no retaliation neither any reply from the other player: this, in a game that is build around the IGYG it's a tombstone...

We don't know the details of this mechanic. For example if killing a models that didn't activate yet force the owner to discard a pass token. But I don't see any problem of using 5 PT in a row, if the opponent got 5 activations more than you...

Overmore, it opens interesting design spaces that the devs had highlighted in M3e presentation: some models or entire crews will be able to trade some activation control for some kind of power, such as Perdita's crew that can discard PT to gain focus. And also, obviously many cheap models will be very susceptible to area damage while relatively resistant to single-target high-damage attacks, and the opposite.

Sure, this means a completely rework of costs of many models. I expect that, since the OA will be not a factor anymore, bigger models would get a cost increase, while some small ones will see their cost decrease accordingly since the inherent advantage to get +1 activation will be no more so important now (malifaux rats at 1ss? stuffed piglet again back to 2ss??? ). But a major part of the beta testing I guess will revolve around this work of balancing things.

Finally, we have a lot of time to do this work and to be sure that the ruleset works and are well balanced. @Mason said the priority is on balance and fun. And this sounds as an insurance, coupled with the fact Wyrd didn't announced any release date yet. This means for me that the mind is open and the beta will be not a simple formal exercise, but a real testing for which there isn't a written conclusion in a defined time at the moment.

So, let's try to be positive and constructive, wouldn't you???

Just my small thoughts here.... 🤗

I guess what people are afraid of is that if there is no value in cheap models because they provide that extra activation, a small-count elite crew could even the odds pretty quickly and then dominate the game. Suppose I have 5 models worth 10 stones each, and you have 10 models worth 5 stones each. My 5 models each kill a cheap model on their turn, while you kill none (especially with damage being toned down and all). So on Turn 2/3 we both have 5 models, but mine are bigger, better and way out of reach of yours. Why would I ever go for quantity if it gives me little advantage? Sure, you can say more models = more actions and you can drop more scheme markers and all - but again, once the big guys dispose of the opponent's extra ones, the game will be pretty much done and dusted there.
Already in M2E against heavy damage/elite crews the only remedy is to stay hidden and delay the important activations, but if this is not possible because pass tokens, one is forced to either expose some models or waste a turn. I'm thinking for example a typical Perdita or Sonnia crew...they can easily murder one (or more) models a turn. The only way to stay safe is to feed them fodder, or delay your important activations staying hidden until she's activated...you see the (potential) problem? If they get multiple pass tokens, there's no way to stay safe...

Again, I'm just voicing what the people are afraid of. I agree that out-activation was starting to become a problem - but it was so only because there were more and more cheap models available. I'm curious to read the rules too and try it out, because as it is there are justified worries, and it looks like certain masters like summoners and masters that made numbers their whole schtick (like Som'er and Hamelin) will be hit - while small elite (and in particular shooty, like Perdita and the like) crews will have an advantage.

For the record, Mason just confirmed that summoning a model means the opponent gets a Pass Token right away

I remember discussing with some people about out-activation still going to be possible with summoning (@Clement @Razhem @Fetid Strumpet @retnab @mrninja13 and others) - this unfortunately means that not even that is going to be true. It looks like the devs are adamant that there can't be any sort of out-activation whatsoever...

At this point my first beta game will have to be Som'er or Ulix or some other summoner - I need to figure out if this Pass Token thing actually makes sense, and how the game changes. I'm very worried.

56 minutes ago, Adran said:

The new scoring looks a bigger change than we've had since maybe first to 1.5, making the strategy harder to score full points, so making it also contribute 50% of the score seems reasonable. 

I'm also not sure that the aim of M2E going to more points on schemes worked out as they intended, certainly the switch to more scoring round by round in recent ganging grounds removed a part of the hidden game. 

For sure one thing: there are many more changes, and of broader nature, than I expected when the news first came out about M3E. The initial message from Wyrd was sort of "fine-tuning" and "tightening the bolts", but as more details keep coming out, this looks more and more like a major overhaul. I mean, fundamental building blocks of the game are being changed like the stats, the AP mechanic etc. - to the point that @cbtb11235813 above said they were playing demo games to get a feel for the new mechanics...

4 minutes ago, Clement said:

1st edition was 8 points.  So there's precedent.  Besides, the new strategies are pretty easy to get 1-2 points out of.  3 and 4 look to be much harder.

It's definitely a shift in perspective - with more emphasis on the strategy (shared and public) rather than schemes (personal and secret) it will look more like a "classic" wargame. Also 8 points is a funny point-total - 10 resonates better with people I guess. 

One more thing for the Beta!

2 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I'm hoping it just means models don't need to have at least one of the better of defensive abilities to stand up to more than a stiff breeze. It's not that I find M2E excessively killy, but survivability is often the lowest barrier to entry for models and one of the most complained about things for the likes of Hannah, Candy and other expensive pieces that aren't built to take hits. If the general damage got dropped it might open up a bit more design space for things that aren't tanky but you're not worried about getting blitzed in two hits if the cards don't go well for you. 

Although, I think the biggest issue with survivability in M2E is actually rock-paper-shotgun interplay between defensive abilities and stuff that ignores them. Makes it hard to say which models can hold their ground and which are going to evaporate without knowing your opponent's crew in advance. You can make a bit of a guess based on faction sometimes, but they're varied enough at this stage that it's not great and it can be nearly as annoying if you bring a load of stuff to deny defensive abilities and then don't see any of them. Plus some later designs like Zipp and the Emissaries just make a joke out of this by basically being built with it in mind. 

I think models being fragile is an interesting part of the game: they can do amazing things (think for example Mr Tannen!) but you have to protect them and be careful not to expose them. Now if killing is toned down, it'll become safer to employ these models, and that in turn means their skills will be toned down too...and the whole thing becomes less interesting.

Plus, I don't know, I never minded my Bayou Gremlins and the like being killed easily, it almost...makes sense...

10 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

 

Ummm, just in case you were unaware, the person your response quoted is the former lead developer of Malifaux, and the individual who was vastly responsible for the redesign into M2E. So while you might not have to agree with him, he likely does have better insight into this whole process, from a design perspective

Hahah I did not know indeed - so yeah, there goes my "unless"
Still, the answer was rather short

19 hours ago, Parker Barrows said:

1. I like this. I have had many, many games come down to who gets initiative on a certain turn. I'd rather have some control. I may still have lower card than my opponent, so luck is still a factor. It just won't be the only one which is good when it can be so important.

2. I'm cautiously optimistic. Honestly, it makes me feel like I'm more likely to want my models to actually do something rather than just wasting a turn since I'm not really gaining an advantage for it.

3. Seems alright as long the themes come out right.

4. I'm fine with this. Models sticking around longer like a good thing.

5. Well, since shooting is taking some hits (+2 DF to cover for example), it seems like this will help keep it balanced. Really, it seems like models will be surviving much more this Edition.

6. I like this. It always sucked to throw away an AP just because you needed to kill that one almost dead enemy. This gives a lot more options.

7. Free totems are nice. It makes them feel much more part of the Master which I whole-heartedly support. I (almost) always play my Master's Totem no matter how terrible it is. Though I agree with others, I want any other Masters taken by the Crew to have to pay for their Totem (no extra cost though). Since Totems DO have a cost, I suspect they will cost for non-Leader Masters (though not sure if there will be a tax).

8. This is good.

9. This is also good. Peons were always so few it felt weird having a special class for super weak models. Just have them become minions.

ME3 will fix that. ;^)

1. Meh. So now the contest becomes on who has the better hand...also models like Doppelganger and Trixiebelle lose a lot of usefulness? 
2. Will have to see what Pass Tokens are used for, but just outright canceling the advantage of out-activation seems a bit hard. 
3. Agree. Actually really like this.
4. 50/50 here. Models sticking around is kinda nice, but on the other hand, some models becoming near-unkillable will be annoying. I always liked that in Malifaux, pretty much anyone could be killed if enough effort was put - and this was also because damage sometimes was pretty high. Also sometimes crazy random stuff happening with jokers, flipping three severe cards on a double negative damage flip (it happened!!) etc. 
5. A negative modifier was a 90% fail without focus, and the model in cover usually didn't even have to spend a card to make it so. This made the odd "hail mary" shot pretty useless (unless, again, one was willing to spend 2AP for 1shot). A +2df on the other hand can be very easily circumvented: in fact, sometimes the shooter is already at an advantage (say Sh6 vs Df 5 or Df 4) and so it looks like your cover will do absolutely nothing against the shot. I'm curious to playtest this, but I think the +2 Df means models in cover will be hit pretty much all the time, and the only difference the cover will make is that the attacking model may have to use a card.
So yeah I think shooty crews if anything are getting a boost...also with the reduction of engagement ranges!
6. Agree.
7. Not sure.
8. Agree.
9. I actually liked Peons - the idea of having super weak models that usually couldn't even interact but somehow still contribute to the crew's victory...

It looks like overall there's a shift towards removing randomness from the game (see the change to initiative, the less damage, the nerf to Red Joker etc.) which kinda goes against the idea of streamlining that is supposed to be the main goal...on top of losing the original Malifaux "Bad Things Happen" flavor. Mmm

20 hours ago, -Loki- said:

If you look at Cojos card from Gencon, he has an ability called Frenzied Charge, which lets him ignore the once per activation limit of Charge. 

The Ice Golem has Flurry, which was one per activation. After taking a melee action you can discard a card to take it again.

If these are examples of what’s happening to (2) actions, it’s more about increasing player choice during a given activation rather than spending time to set it up, and increasing AP efficiency. You get the same result - you can charge and then spend your second AP attacking again, or hit a model 3 times using Flurry.

But now if your second attack from Flurry or first attack from Charge kills the enemy, you have a choice of what to do next rather than having wasted AP.

Yeah I noticed the change to Flurry, I quite like it. So yeah, (2) actions are not being "translated" into actions that cost two actions (!) but rather, as options. I think this is good, but different. So I have to forget about the double healing....😆
By the way, did the Ice Golem lose his 3rd AP?

20 hours ago, Lalochezia said:

I think M3E looks like a far superior experience to M2E, and exactly what the game needs.

 

That's a bit simplistic LOL. Superior: I don't know how you can say that, unless you've been Alpha testing...it looks simpler, for sure, and I agree with you it is what the game needs - because what the game needs now is to grow, to attract new players, to become popular so it can contend with the "big games" out there. And for this, the game needs to be simplified a bit, inevitably (hopefully without getting to the "pew pew" of Space Marines). But superior I don't know - right now I can't think of anything superior to M2E
But yeah very "compact" answer

@Zebo thanks for your answer! I agree about the initiative. I'm really on the edge about pass tokens, but I guess we'll have to see how much they get used, if they burn quickly etc. Similarly not convinced about free totems. I'm ok with very few generic, versatile models. You still have plenty of options for a crew without needing many versatile models. I guess the idea is to have max 1-2 non-thematic, non-versatile models per crew. Say for instance an average 8-model crew: master, 5 thematic, 1 versatile and 2 non-keyword/non-versatile. That way, you just have to pay +2SS. So if you really need one or two models for a task that can't be accomplished by a keyword guy, you pay a little extra.

2 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I'm all in favour of simplification in terms of stream-lining, but not if it's to the point where your choices start to matter less. Charge is still interesting for the reasons you've mentioned, attack stats were fiddly and largely pointless, AP is only gone in name, weaker red joker does make holding it less of an important choice and peons were a bit of a stub and had that annoying overlap with insignificant that meant one of them was close to redundant. It's kind of hard to say where we are in terms of simplification at this stage because adding in double masters probably does more to complicate the game than any single other thing they could have done. 

Also, generally think some simplification in terms of core rules is pretty necessary if Wyrd want to keep making things more complicated via new releases. 

Yep, I see your point. Just, in the beginning I wasn't worried at all, now we are unsure - it's not good  

It's subtle differences sometimes, but think about this for example: a (2) AP action costs all of a model's AP, so normally can only be taken once. However, if the models gains extra AP, it might be able to take it twice: for example a fast, reckless Slop Hauler can heal twice (I built an entire crew on this!). How are you going to represent this with the current AP-less wording? The current (proposed?) wording for former (2) actions is "this action can only be taken once per activation, and no other action can be taken if this one is taken" ...so now add "unless the model can take two more actions, in which case this action can be taken again, and no other action can be taken after this action is taken again". You get my point

Not sure if this has popped up somewhere else already, but here's an excerpt from Malifaux Musings:

What do people think?

I'm actually in favor of most of those, even though there is a concern for watering-down that keeps creeping up...simplification is nice, over-simplification not so much. No more different charge ranges, no more stat for attacks, no more AP, weakened red joker, now no more peons...there's actually quite a few more that don't come to mind now, but all together, it looks like we're losing quite a bit of depth.

The new charge is interesting, even though it is strange that there isn't at least a +2 to the Mv or something like this. But basically if you use both AP - pardon, actions - you get a movement and two attacks like the old one...or you could walk and then charge for very long threat range, but only 1 attack. So it's an interesting tradeoff.

The reduction in engagement range means it's going to be harder to get engaged - I'll miss the 3" of some of the models, they provided huge table control! I'm a bit concerned about shooty crews being too powerful, especially since cover seems to have also gone down in efficacy - the  modifier made sure that hitting in cover was almost impossible, now a mere +2 Df won't do much at all...

Damage scaled down: not sure what to think. Games will last longer if no models die

Pass tokens: completely cancel the advantage of out-activation? Man, that's harsh. You lose entirely one aspect of the game - again, we're losing some depth here. Some crews really relied on that to work.

Cheating initiative: again it looks like an attempt to make Malifaux more "democratic" and less depending on fate. 

In fact, now that I think about it, this seems to emerge as a recurring theme...both players have same number of activations (with pass tokens), both can cheat initiative, same amount of "cache" (0), red joker is watered down, etc. So less "bad things happen", and more chess? Mmmm. I kinda like the randomness aspect. I understand it can be frustrating at times, especially for beginners (and maybe that's why the change) but too predictable and too many "equal opportunities" becomes less spicy. I might be wrong, but that's my feeling.

Overall, I thought M3E was going to be a minor rework with a few changes in selected aspects that needed fine-tuning, but it looks more and more like a major overhaul, and I think it'll be a very different game experience. Looking forward to the Beta, and hopefully some or most of these changes are still work-in-progress!

Your thoughts folks?

5 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Chiaki would not be a bad idea - she is tough, can deal with Conditions and can sub for a Scheme runner.

It's certainly possible to devise a list to take this one down but I really meant this as a counter to the current meta that favours insane alpha strikes and stuff like that. And that is why I didn't add the Emissary/Asura/Sybelle/whatever else. I also feel that GG18 is a surprisingly good environment for this style of list.

Gremlins do have lots of trouble with this list, though. I'm not at all sure how I'd tackle this one without specifically building a counter against it.

If they aren't needed for Schemes, I suggest replacing them with Chiaki and/or Night Terrors.

Some of those like Hold up their Forces and Show of Force might seem superb at a first glance but getting more than one point against this list from those might be trickier than you'd initially think if the Seamus player is good with Lures. Especially Hold up Their Forces might end up being way dangerous.

That said, there certainly are obvious weaknesses in the Strat&Scheme department for this list and I did give full points for Punish the Weak against Collodi (it was helped by terrain, he did flip and play well, and I could've played it better but it's still a tough Scheme to deny).

Looks really mean! 

Gremlin-wise, the only thing I can think of with Gremlins, is to fight on outactivation. If you win that battle, perhaps you can get to call the shots (excuse the pun!) on who goes when (and where!) and then might have a chance to bring down a Belle or two - which in turn would turn the tide of the overall game.

I guess Gremlins having cheap activations and cheap-ish beaters (and lots of AP) they can invest extra resources to try and kill even low-priority targets like Crooligans etc - and that would then skew the outactivation battle even more.

A summoning-heavy Som'er or my beloved Ulix for example? I usually have 13-15 activations, several disposable pigs and a lot of healing.

Tough call though, can't say it would always work...and I certainly wouldn't wanna deal with quadruple lures for the life of me, especially with the renowned Gremlin Willpower!

3 hours ago, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

I have the same concern, especially after talking to people who actually test 3rd edition. I do believe that having two will be a competitive minimum.

Indeed, that is perhaps my biggest concern. I find it very hard to balance the double-master option: if they're too desirable, then we end up with a situation even worse than before, where we have at least a Nekima/beater master in every faction - but if they're not desirable enough, no one would bother hiring a second master...unfortunately it looks like it'll be the first case since that's the direction of the change, but it would be a crying shame if the only way to compete would be to have a 2-master crew. Again, seeing how this worked with Nekima in Neverborn crews, I'm inclined to believe it...

Can't wait to start the Beta testing, I guess!