Kyris

I'd disagree. it'd be easier to just nerf the master than remove them entirely. unless the master is built around something that is inherently broken and impossible to fix without breaking another master.

and how is proving to players that their purchases can be invalidated in future releases, that their favorite masters will suddenly just be gone, serve that goal? In what way is taking things away from players a way to increase interest? and not just going to make people weary about buying into the game because "Well, I don't want them to just get rid of my favorite masters. or take them away from my faction"? which is something that can be fixed by balancing. not nuking him from orbit. again. poor justification for a bad design philosophy.

In the change from 1.5 to 2E, we knew those masters were coming, though. sure, the wait was long. But no one was told "you can't use this master anymore." like we all now. it's a poor comparison. Doesn't matter. Still invalidating player choices. But, they won't be legal for anything "wyrd official". That means for anyone strictly competitive, or who's trying to get strictly competitive, they're gone. they're useless. Why would you bother learning, and practicing those masters if you know you won't be able to use them in your end goal? Yeah, see, and thats not the mentality a company should breed. "We can do whatever the fuck we want! don't get too attached to your masters! we might decide they're not useful in the next edition!". Thats not how you foster a loyal fanbase; thats how you ruin your player bases goodwill. whole lot of speculation being used to justify something that a lot of people think is a bad design philosophy. Sure. Maybe it happens. Maybe I win the lottery tomorrow, doesn't mean I should quit my job tonight.

if they currently had plans for that, it would've been announced by now; they're doing everything they can to quill people's anger about the changes in the new edition. So, they wont tell you no outright, but 10 to 1 odds the answer is "there are currently no plans to allow that"

A lot of masters have lost their dual-factions. Lynch and misaki are now 10T only. Brewmaster is now bayou only. McMourning is resser only. etc.

Yeah, i feel ya. if they want cards of weird dimensions, they should just make the app free for M3E and then they can do whatever they want.

sorry. but ask anyone who plays older formats like legacy...newer sets are NOT balanced with older sets in mind specifically because of that rotation. but lets not act like a card game is the same thing as a mini game.

Honestly, given the scale of what they're trying to do I could easily see testing going on for a year or more.

Great in theory. never works that way in practice.

Why? the change from fantasy to AOS made it MORE like Malifaux...

I hope they do something similar, but it seems weird that they'd bother with updating the stat cards for release, giving the whole "dead man's hand" thing if their intention was to release new models later. If that is the case, personally, I think a "they're not going to be available on release, but will come later down the pipe line" notification would've been better. I mean, look at 1.5 to 2E, how long did people go without being able to play their masters? but they knew they were coming eventually so it was okay. But hey, I could be wrong.

i mean, we only know for sure that 2 models are. but there are a lot of masters it would seem that would require, if not new sculpts, at least entirely new boxes.

Seems like a lot of the masters they're revamping were less popular than Lilith, Ramos and Nico though? and, if we're under the assumption that everyone is getting a new M3E sculpt like Raspy is...Well, I figure Kaeris would be on the chopping block loooong before Lilith or Nico. So I don't think that's it.

I think it's really easy to just say "you're just upset, calm down" and invalidate peoples opinions without feeling like you're doing that. But there are a lot of reasons to be against these changes other than just being upset. i've always been against removing player choice from games, no matter what game that's been or whether I'm personally effected or not.

Personally, if they're going this route, I think they should go the GW style and make the narrative play the optional style for tournaments, where as the "match play" would be the default for tournaments and events not explicitly stated to be otherwise.

See? again. You're putting the onus on me instead of realizing that its your wording thats starting the issue.

Don't be a jerk? you're the one trying to act like I'm just upset but it doesn't matter because you think it's better for the game.

Funny, how when it's something YOU'RE okay with you get all "well even if its something You don't like it is for the best so suck it up"

They said they're tournament legal at the discretion of TO's. So, the options are to either actually support them throughout. Or gimp them to such a degree that they may as well not even have the dead man's hand to begin with.

Not tournament legal by default, but still allowed at TO discretion....they'll still need to support them, unless it's going to be a shitty half-measure where they just release an updated stat card and never speak of them again. In which case they may as well not even do that.

except for the fact that using their dead man's hand method. they still do have to support all of those masters.

false dilemma. You can advance the story and the game mechanics without risking pissing off or alienating players who main one of the masters that are now gone, or play a master in a faction that is no longer allowed. i don't see how doing that serves the player base at all. Also. Don't ask questions and assume the answer just to further your own argument. I would absolutely still play malifaux without the lore. The lore is frankly the thing I care the least about. I play Malifaux because its fun, and different enough from other war games that I can play it, and 40K, and other war games without it feeling too much like the same thing.

weird. Here I was under the impression that tournaments for a game were based around the gameplay..

that are entirely optional up to the TO; so there's almost no point in learning them or getting good at them depending on the local meta and scene. and then there's removing factions from a lot of people, such as almost every 10T's master. Even if they're trying to go more thematic-crew rather than faction based, that *will* have consequences for the tournament scene.

I, personally, have never seen one person hold both opinions. it's always one, or the other. I, for example. am of the opinion that the game should always, ALWAYS come first. If they want to write interesting stories without worrying about how it effects their game, they can always go the Black Library route and start releasing novels - which I'd be all for. But Malifaux is a game first. everything should serve the interests of the game and their players.