Jump to content

SunTsu

Members
  • Content Count

    739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SunTsu last won the day on September 26 2018

SunTsu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

501 Mondo Bodacious

About SunTsu

  • Rank
    Master
  • Birthday 02/15/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On page 11 of the rulebook, I read: It's not very clear if: - all "when resolving" Triggers only occur if the Action was successful, and some of them may modify the effects of the Action; -or if only "when resolving" Triggers that modify the effects of the Action only occur if the Action was successful... Assuming the first as the intent, I suggest a different wording:
  2. I read the section about duels, at page 9, and I found some different not homogeneous timing clause that probably would be better to simplify and unify. We have: - Step A: Modify The Duel - Step B: Flip Fate Card - Step E: Declare Triggers Since the active player usually is the attacker, why not simplify these making for all "the attacking player goes first"? Also: I find this sentence a bit clunky and also redundant. It shouldn't be better something like:
  3. My main point is not about balancing cheap models vs expensive ones. My real concern is about not having anymore any tool that took the heritage of the old defencive stance. In the original proposal, that tool had to be the focused condition. But in order to balance the focus-giving stuff and the attack power of focused itself, it now results in an unuseful tool for defensive purposes. I don't mind how to fix it, mine were just some ideas and possibilities. But I would expect that m3e will have a tool that let players use some resources in order to improve survibility of a model, because it distinguish Malifaux from some other wargames where you just roll some dice and see what happens. The proposal I underlined in my previous last post reindroduce a defensive-like use of focused condition, in a way largely tested for the entire m2e. It comes to a cost for the model: an action to concentrate + burning the focused condition + burning a card, to get a defensive bonus. It's not free and don't gives to damages, but at least it would worth a consideration on models that you would like to survive a little more, or more probably at least forcing the opponent to burn a little more resources to kill them.
  4. Ok, never mind the on damage on defence with the focus. But I gave more than one options and all of you focused (uh... irony??? ) only on a single one.... For example I wrote: This have the added bonus to use a mechanic that was present in m2e (so no massive test would required), it's a way to use low cards, and compensate the actual once-per-turn limitation on concentrate action. I wrote it as "until end of turn", but it could easily say "until the start of next activation", exactly as the old defensive was. Or it could be written as to be used during own activation, as it was for the old defensive. Example: Actually, with the once-per-turn cap, using a focused on defence is essentially a very corner case and will find few but no play at all. At the moment, models that are not able to use ss haven't any tool to improve their chance of survive, regarding of how many resources you have and would like to burn fo it, because simply there isn't anything to let a player control fate on a defending model. I think this is one of the main reasons behind the fact that cheap 4-5ss models are so easy to kill. The m3e focused condition had the intent to unify and summed toghter both the old focus and the old defensive conditions in a single one that had both purposes. But actually the focused condition failed to achieve that good purpose, and we miss completely the defensive part of the equation. I strongly feel that, without that part, the game lost a major part of their basic and characteristic tools. When I explained the game to newbies, I often said that, differently from other games, here you haven't just pure luck, because you have the chance to use your resources to let your models more resilient: just burn a card and 1AP and you get a good when attacked. Now the only option is a really evident suboptimal corner case choice that I would never suggest. We really miss a game pillar here...
  5. Yes, but my point is that it strips a control tool from the game, and Malifaux had been always about using the right tool to control the randomness. For example, I miss an universal way to profit on low cards for all models...
  6. That's exactly for this reason I would write that rule in a more flexible and easy way. How it's worded now it's very specific and precise. I repeat that I don't understand why it prescribe to ignore the entire building and not only the shadow...
  7. Once upon a time there was "defensive", a condition used to gives an edge to a model against attacks and also a way to use low cards. In the m3e defensive was dropped and its role was taken in principle by the focus, that had been rules to work both in attack than on defense. From the very first moments of the m3e I thought it was a good move, because with a single condition you get both effect at once. But after a long time I am under the feeling that the focus is almost never used in defense, since it is o much stronger in attack that it would be a waste using it defensively. Anyone else felt the same? For reference, the focused condition reads: Frankly, I would miss the game control in defense if the only tool in the game designed to take the defensive role would result ineffective. I think it would be an issue for the game, because it would let it less controllable and more swingy. This can be particulary true considering the actual once-per-turn limitation focus got in the attempt to limit its power... Have anyone have some ideas to let the things more balanced between attack/defence??? Some possible fix I thought of could be: 1- making the focus working on duel flips only, while to get the damage bonus you hav to discard a second focus, and making also the concentrate action giving focused+2 instead. This have the good to rebalance the attack/defence ratio, and also rebalance the concentrate action against free single focus that some models gives out (that "abuse" was the reason behind nearing focus). On the other hand it could be a major change, so it needs to be evaluated well. 2- Letting the focus used in defense giving also a to the attacker's damage flip (in a similar but opposed way as focus works in attack). This have the advantage to rebalance the attack/defence ratio without modify how focus actually works when used in attack, so it's a relative easy and simple fix (and the one I think the best in actual scenario). A wording that works this way is: 3- Another idea could be mimicring the old defensive condition, letting a model using a focus in defence making its bonus last until the end of the turn for the same kind of duels. This works different from the previous idea where that was a perfect simmetrical bonus in attack/defence, while here you get and asymmetrical effect that recall the old fashioned "defensive stance". But it's also more complex to wording...
  8. I noticed a possible problem in advanced building rules on page 38 of manual, where you can read: As written, if two models are divided by a solid wall in two different rooms on the same floor of the same building, they can see/shoot free without any sort of problem. But this seems simply silly. It should be fixed so that a model ignore just the shadow and not the very building walls. something like this: I can't figure which potential issue the actual wording is trying to prevent (please enlight me, thanks), but for sure it creates weird and stupid situations...
  9. This had been fixed in the final update...
  10. The problem with corrupted idols is not so simple. There are same issue that should be fixed before that, as I and others said elsewhere... However, by RAW, a marker can be placed inside terrain if not explicitly forbidden. So by rules you place the marker inside impassable area (that finally could mean not placing it).
  11. I like the fact that now we have few effective upgrades, while in m2e we had a lot of unuseful upgrades. But from the very strat of this game design choice, I had some issues about it. In my mind, having so few upgrades should mean that most of them should be effective, if not for all models in a faction, at least at the most part. Formally it works this way. Instead some upgrades are by fact restricted to a minor number of models. I'll write an example to make my thoughts clearer, using Arcanist's Soulstone Cache upgrade as model: Now, this upgrades have no formal restriction that limit who can buy this. On the other hand, it's a fact that this upgrade will see play only on a small subset of models. The problem is that the cost of the upgrade is calculated considering all the abilities on it as effective. So if a master/henchman would buy this one it would spend 2ss to get just a single ability: I don't think it would never happen. The same for a model that have some ability that let it using ss. The reason is that these models finally would overpay this upgrade, because for the same cost they get less than other models. The same concept behind rewarding minions is not completely embraceable in my mind: while in m2e there was largely true that minions were the more fragile models, now in m3e the concept of stations changed completely (even if this transition was not fully completed, imvvvho). Now minions are simply the models whith plentiful, while enforcer/hench/master are those unique models. I don't completely like this change, but that's another discussion... For the purpose of upgrades disquisition instead, all upgrades tend to reward minions giving them a free ability: I think it's not always fair, because there are same strong heavy minion that benefit from a bonus thought to give an edge to small fragile models, and some enforcers that are really fragile and weak models in game term. For example, there are many totems that are little weak enforcer models, while some minions are very tough big guys. So the problem here, from my perspective, is that we have a rigid upgrade's design, and that some strong models get a bonus that should go only to weaker ones. I have some ideas to how change this, and I will write some examples of them: 1- let's make upgrades cheaper for those models that cannot use one ability the upgrade provides: for example if a model that can use ss by itself would hire "Soulstone Cache", it could pay it only 1ss instead of 2ss. This would increase the number of models that would buy a particular upgrade in practice; 2- another way to make things more flexible and less rigid, could be by don't specify wich ability get minions or non-minions models. Something like: "This upgrade cost 1ss, and the model can choose one of the following 3 abilities. If the model spend +1ss it can choose +1 ability. If the model is a minion it can choose +1 ability." In this way a minion could get 2 ability paying just 1ss, or the full 3 paying all 2ss, while a non-minion model could get 1 ability for 1ss, or 2 abilities for 2ss. This for example would let an henchman/master buy "Soulstone Cache", because it can avoid to pay for the attuned ability it already owns; 3- remove completely 'minion' as a parameter, in favor of a "cost-less-then-X" statement. For example, instead of 'minion' condition, the upgrade could say: "If this model costs 6ss or less, it also gains the following Ability:". This would more effectively reward weaker models than the 'minion' stipulation do, imo. Any ideas???
  12. Well, obviously it's a simultaneaus process here. You usually should put apart the card/miniature of the master you choosed (or write it on a paper) and then both the opponents reveal their choice. In casual games you can play it differently: I often ask to my opponent if he wants to play against a particular crew/master. But in competitive games no one should choose after the opponent revealed his choice...
  13. Really I'm fine with some masters having 1-2 "forbidden" factions. I would have a problem if that master would be hard countered by an high number of factions. Imo, if each faction have at least 5-6 masters viable against any other faction, and each master have no more than 1-2 factions against whom I would never use it, the things are fine. It's because if a master isn't competitive against not more than 1-2 factions, but it remains competitive vs the othes 4-5, it will be granted enough playtime onto the tables.
  14. Changing that particular rule don't imply in any way to don't use 3d anymore...
  15. I disagree. And not just because your wording doesn't change nothing in how to apply thi rule. Here we have a statement that doesn't add nothing to the game, but complexity and some weird unexpected situations... There are problems and problems. Maybe there isn't a technical problem, but for sure there's a game design problem. This rule hit the table in so few corner case scanarios, that it would be difficult to build a tactic around this. It's a rule that will go undernoticed for most players. So first of all it will require a FAQ for sure. Than it will be missplayed very often, or because the players will forget about that strange-weird-corner-case-situation, or because they simply ignore that. In those rare cases where it will be played right, it would create that unpleasant "gotcha!" effect that m3e is fighting against so hard... However, imo here we have also a bad written rule from a technical point of view, since it's not clear when you have to apply that conditional "may", and it collide with the assumption (made even in the m3e rulebook even if not explicitly said) that the los is a two-way effect, as @solkan pointed out correctly: So finally, my question is: why we want to keep a rule like this in m3e? Which positive effect or nice game experience adds to the game?
×
×
  • Create New...