Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SunTsu last won the day on September 26 2018

SunTsu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

501 Mondo Bodacious

About SunTsu

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/15/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Firt of all, thanks everyone for your interest in this argument and sharing your thoughts. I always appreciate a constructive discussion and sharing of points-of-views, even and particulary when I don't agree completely with those of the others. I always found that this enrich my mind and souls, and help me to find a new perspective about things. That said... I think I was missunderstood about the jokers stuff. I'm not supporting the idea of removing jokers from the game (even if playing without jokers it's perfectly possible and don't remove random aspect neither fun from the game). There is 1 BJ in your deck and 1 RJ the opponent can flip, both situation prevent you to cheat. Considering that a deck is composed by 54 cards, there is roughly 1/27 chances to not be able to flip (really a little less, considering that not every time you make a duel it involves the opponent's deck). This is a particular high precentual. But it isn't neither a neglectable one. I thhink we can agree we are less or more the same chances of snake-eyes on 2d6. Exactly this. But the difference is in the words that guy said during his last game at Malifaux: "It's the same thing that in WH... so why I should play this instead of another?". Now, I know that's not exactly the same and that the game is completely different. But the point is that Malifaux is a complex game hat requires complex in-game analysis. And it's a game of resources management and strategical/tactical play more than pure luck. So wargamers approaching Malifaux usually are searching for these kind of experience in a game. The problem in the jokers how they are concepted now is not in the probability to fail a duel in itself. The problem is in the "spikes" of missfortune and in that the jokers rules cut completely away the resources management stuff... About spikes, we know that in Malifaux much more than in other wargames, not all flips are equal. If in WH your space marine unit shoot at alien scums, roll 1 on a particular die doesn't much so much usually. In Malifaux, flipping a BJ in shooting randomization on that particular model you wanted to hit, or in that vital tactical action you worked on all the turn and for that you stored that very right cards, sacrificing something else previously in that turn, it's absolutely not on the same level... About resources management, jokers are a pure luck event that prevent any possibility to do something about it, cutting away from the game the engine itself of the concept arout whom are developed the rules... I'm not saying "Hey! Let's to remove all the randomness from the game!". I'm more on the side "Hey, don't you think this could be a bit too much in some situation?" I agree with the BJ having the best place in your hand. ut this introduce more randomness in the game: if I have the luck to get the BJ in my hand from the first turn, you play at a disadvantage since you can randomly fail an important action, while I at a cost of a single card cannot. Again... this rule indirectly promote swarm crews (so OA thing): if I have a lot of little actions to do, getting a BJ (or opponent's RJ) doeasn't hurt me much. If I have many elite models, getting a no-cheat clause on one of their actions is much more problematic. This is a game design problem to not underestimate. Finally, some factions/models have tools to avoid the randomness while others don't. Your Somer+Skeeters exemple exactly show this, and again can rise a game design problem since if not everyone get the same tool, and I think that it's not by accident that Somer is undoubtedly one of the best master of the game. Infact I'm not contesting the jokers by themself. I'm aying that maybe cutting away any possibility to cheat in a game based on this aspect can be a little too much. As you said, even fixing this aspect will let the game have substantial luck element. First, thanks for your reply. Then... I can understand why someone would like to bring jokers out of the game. But I understand also those who likes jokers as extremely random event. It's for these reasons I proposed a middle way rule. I was starting to test an "house rule" about jokers when M3e was announced. My proposed rule was: When a jokers prevent a model to cheat, it can spend: - 1ss to cheat a weak card; - +1ss to cheat a moderate card instead; - +1ss if that model cannot use ss; - you can discard 2 cards in place of each soulstone. So, basically with this rule flipping a BJ is however a very bad affair, but at least you can have a choise that let players to partially bypass the no-cheat stipulation. Essentially, a minion that want to cheat a 6-10 need to burn 3ss (that means around 5 wounds less for a master/henchman) or an entire hand of cards, while a master/henchman wanted to cheat just a very low card should need brn "just" 1ss/2cards. This rule have the merit to not alter too much the impact of a joker flip, but giving players some choice about that can be used just in critical situation, since it comes at a very high cost. If we think about it, it change few in opposed duels: it's very difficult that this rule will let you win an opposed duel since you can cheat just a 10 maximum, but can help mitigate the missfortune spike putting the winner on negative for damage or hitting that defensive trigger your model would need. It can be a bit more useful for tactical abilities that don't require a severe card, since even if at an high cost, it can let you you action works. My concern about this rule (I had no time to test it exentensively for now) is that can be too much punishing to let an effective use. So maybe it would better a variant where you can cheat a weak or moderate card send that first soulstone... These are just thoughts and suggestions. What I would like is an M3e that would be much better to attract new players to this game. Since this jokers discussion is clearly a matter of very personal taste, I would like that the manual would propose players with some alternative rules. Something like: "ok, you can play without jokers, or with jokers that let you impossible to cheat, or with a rule that let you cheat by spending some resources. The standard rule is ...". Just my two cents... 😃 P.S.: I don't know if I will be in the beta, but I hope to continue this discussion there with all of you. Thanks for your time.
  2. Sorry, but this and all the following discussion it's a completely non-sense to me... I'm going to explain my thoughts. What does it means comparing 1 Izamu against 2 TT Brothers, in a vacuum and limited perspective of who is able to kill who??? What the hell is this based on? What does demonstate? Even if it would be true that Izamu would so easily eat 2xTTB (and someone else showed that probabily this isn't so true...), we perfectly know that Malifaux is a S&S based game, and that those victory condition are usually not linked on killing all opponent's models you can see on the battlefield (that is another game... ). Even when you can make points by killing something, it's quite never a free and deliberate massacre of everything moving of the field, but it requires a certain degree of planning and target selection. Overmore, in that example (I know you didn't made it @edopersichetti, I quoted your message cause this discussion started to deriving more or less from that point in timeline I guess... 😘 ) are compared a strong and durable beater against some tools/scheme models. And, also, this comparison is made in a total vacuum of supporting models and player objectives... All this, just to back up the idea that a pass mechanic wuld be a bad thing for the game...?!?!?!?! Really...???? What the hell is based on this discussion???? I can't understand... We had not any rules in hand. We don't know how the game/models balance will be. We had not have a single playtest match of the game under the new rules. But someone can say, with absolute certainty, that a pass mechanic in itself is bad for the game. What we know for certain from several years of Malifaux is that OA had been the main argument of the game, the main concept around build every crew, and surely a very BIG problem in game design. The problem with OA, as someone else pointed out, is not linked to specific single models, but is a "bug" n the basic rules. This alone narrows the design spaces for the devs, let balancing models harder and makes the game less variable in crew building. And devs are really very focused on this, as results very clearly since from the Stuffed Piglets errata. Essentially, the message of the Wyrd's game designers is that, if we want to let evolve the game and make it better, we have to handle the OA problem...
  3. @Mason may I ask you a thing, if it's possible to know? In the M3e there is a cause that let players to cheat fate if they wouldn't cause of jokers? I mean something that let a player burns some resources (stones/cards/others) in order to cheat fate on a BJ (or opponent's flipped RJ)? If not, it's an open question for the beta??? I ask it cause with some other local henchmen we were discussing about spikes of missfortune and how these can sometimes ruin the fun or an accurately planned game a player made: a BJ on an horror duel, or on that very tactical action for which the player stored the right card from the first turn, and cause pure missluck often cost the entire game... I thnk that, from a fluff perspective, the inesorable whims of pure luck it's in perfect Malifaux style. But on the other hand, by a game design perspective and looking at fun and in-game-balance, Malifaux is felt (rigtly) as a game where the abilities of the players, their tactical and strategical choices have a much more weight on the randomness of a dice roll. So, by this point of view, we agreed that for the game wellness would be much better to limit these high spikes. I had even a new player that started to play Malifaux (TT exactly) and suddenly he dropped cause somebad experience with high spikes of missfortune for what, really, he couldn't do nothing. Obviously, I think he was too wuick to judge so negative the game just for a pair of missluck episodes. Nevertless, if you approach Malifaux thinking to play a game where luck is checked at bay and you have similar bad experiences, it doeasn't help... So, I'd like just to know if devs detected this as a problem and wrote a rule to handle it, or at least there is room to discuss it in beta. Thanks from now for your reply (or lack of it...)
  4. 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.... 🤗
  5. Sure. But in that case it wouldn't be a very poor and underused "new concept" in the game, giving a value to masters and then use it just less than half times? Really, why calculate a cost for a piece, and then let it be hired for free without a very good reason? Finally, if a couple master+totem would cost (let's say) 25ss, saying "you can get M+T free and then spend 50ss" or "you can spend 75ss your crew, including M+T" it's essentially the same. With the big difference that in the first case you dropped a tool for balance the game, while in the second you have much more design space to work on. I don't understand... You basically are saying here the same that I said? The points cost of a model, in theory, it's a representation of the weight in the game of that model. That's obviously theoric, particulary in a game like Malifaux where we have different "missions" with very different approaches and model's roles on the battlefield. But, in a theoric vacuum, and if priced correctly, I should expect that 4x3ss models would have the same impact in the game than 2x6ss or a single 12ss model. I think we can safely agree on this, isn't it? So now, if you gives me a fee of +4ss on those 4x3ss models, and just +1ss on the single 12ss one, aren't you shifting that "points/performance ratio" you mentioned before, in favor of the bigger model??? Finally you're getting onto the table an equivalent "value" of models, but in a case you're spending much more than the other... Mmmm... exactly on what you disagree with me? You quoted a part where I argued that if additional masters would get just a little +1ss fee, it would result in a super convenient hire and could led to a game where 2-3-4 masters are required in order to be competitive, and that would be very unfun and would promote very similar lists for a given faction. So, you disagree with the fact that the +1ss tax would be trivial for a master? Or on that it would be a very convenient hire? You disagree with the idea that it would be better avoid a masterfaux situation since it would be unfun? I didn't undestand... Essentially, I made a reasoning. I moved from the Wyrd's idea to let play more masters in the same crew, so giving them a formal cost in ss. I liked this base idea and I find it opens up new design spaces. Considering this, I thought that giving the leader for free wouldn't be coherent with that base idea, since it would close a bit that space that opened before. Overmore it would result in a unuseful complication (this is the cost, but than you get it for free, but only if this is the first master you hire...) for a very little gain if any, that is against the idea about streamlining the game. I proposed an alternative: first recalculate the models' costs going on an upper scale (+50%?), so that the devs can better fine tuning the cost of single models and better modulate the out-of-theme fee. Also, I suggested that this tax shouldn't be a flat+1ss, but it should be smaller on cheper models, higher on more expensive ones. Making this fee a written number on each model card would probably opens up some interesting design space. But it would work even if that tax would be linked to the general cost of models, with a simple formula (examle: each full 5ss of cost, add+1ss).
  6. I understand your concern. I like that bit of craziness in the wild card from a fluff perspective. But from a game design point-of-view Malifaux is very different from others wargames like warhammer. Malifaux it's a resource management game based, and a game where the skill of players and their in-game decisions (should) matter very very much more of the simple luck of a dice roll or a bad flip. Obviously randomness exists, and it's good so, but it should not weight so mach to let someone that played well and made a good plan to lose just for a bad flip. In this path, I would see very well a way to soften jokers spikes. The jokers are the main randomness factor in this game. The real problem is that the impact of the jokers are not always equal: sometimes you can flip a joker in a really safe situation, like a randomization flip or a minor duel, while elsewhere you can flip a joker in a vital situation that can cost you the game (a terror test, a damage flip or on that very exactly duel for which you stored that exactly right card to play on that action). Speaking with others local henchmen, I thought of a possible rule to let players cheat fate even when a joker would stops it. It should be something like that: - If a joker prevent a model to cheat fate, it can cheat a weak card by spending 1ss; - To cheat a moderate card, model need to spend +1ss; - If the model doesn't have the soulstone manipulation ability, it needs to spend +1ss; - In place of each ss, you can discard 2 cards. This let a player makes a choose: cheating fate (but not a super high card) by burning a significantly number of resources, or accept to not be able to cheat fate. This would reduce the weight of spikes in game letting a player to manage (at least partially) the missfortune, but not for free.
  7. Yes, it was 50%. Do you think it's few? Sure. But if rules will say you get first master+totem for free, the points adjustment how much can help? I never saw a player reason like you said. No one says "ok, that's just a 2% of my list". Basically, a player count what he heve to pay for what, and choose the most effective selection. Let's consider that the points of the models are effectively balanced. Let's say you have to buy 12ss in value of models, and you have two options: or 3x4ss models, or a single 12ss model. using a flat +1ss you would pay 15ss in the first case, only 13 in the second. Is it fair??? I don't think so. Let's move on including masters in our reasoning. I guess that, if you hire a second master, you have to aythe flat +1ss tax. This, on a model that should cost around 14ss, it's really a little fee... Instead, if you would pay a different fee according to the model you want to hire, the things would be much more in line for all the models (cheap or expensive), including masters that should get the highest fee to prevent a kind of Masterfaux, if you understand what I mean... 😃
  8. I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant... My thought was that the cost of a master is finally a tool that can be used as a levarage to help in balancing models both at the beginning of a game design, that later when you will discover some unbalance or you will add some new things that will need to rebalance the game. So, deciding that all the master costs the same will results in dropping a tool that can be useful soon or later, or you will create an unbalance in the game: because, when a player discover that a master perform significantly better than another for the same cost, that player will always tend to choose him as free buy, and when the devs have to deal with the problem they will get a tool less to work with... Instead, if the system force you to pay for each model based on its real value, including the first master, then there will be a simple tool to help in balance things.
  9. I agree with you and others that said cheat initiative is good. I have to underline that moving from the pure luck of a single flip (that you can reflip spending one stone, but however remain in pure luck category), it's very different that going to the "luck" of your hand. Sure, the cards arriving in your hand at the start of the turn are essentially random. But the focus is moving from simple randomness to resource economy: have I cheat an high card to get initiative, or it's better to use it later? Overmore, knowing I can cheat initiative, I can get an high card in myhand from the previous turn in order to take initiative for myself on the following turn. That's not random at all, but it's resources menagment. Finally, it's worth to underline that in m2e only few crews (gremlins and neverborn in particular) could cheat initative, and models providing this ability are largely overused. Giving everyone the chance to cheat nitiative by default is a good move for me, that subtract something random from the game, giving an additional layer about how to use your resources. Tha't always good for a game like Malifaux. I always thought that uncheatable initiative sounded a bit strange in Malifaux...
  10. Mmmmm.... Hard to see things that way for me... I don't think that is possible to write two masters so balanced to have exactly the same value. At least, you can do it at the beginning. But when, in a future, you will need to make some errata, dropping a tool like the model's co,, st could be difficult to deal with. If you think how many master had been balanced also cutting their cache (the last one was Sandeep, just few time ago...), you can understand what I mean... About costs, I would suggest to evaluate increasing model's ss cost a bit, let's say each 2ss going to 3ss. This will gives a better control over the value points of single models, particularly the cheaper ones, while at the same time letting standard crews go to 100ss (including master+totem hiring) remaining less or more at the same models count. Finally, about out of theme tax, I find that a flat +1ss is wrong. +1ss on a 3-4ss model means increasing 25-20% its cost, while on a 13ss model this increase is less than 8%, so less than a third impact and finally a negligible penalty after all. Also, this means essentially that factions have no more real existence... A different approach could be to write on the model card the variation cost (if any) to hire it in or out of theme. For example a December Acolyte cost's could be 8(-1) or 7(+1) respectively giving a bonus to hire it in-theme or a malus hiring it out-theme (I prefer the bonus version after all, but both would be viable). In this way we can set a fine tuning cost for each model, letting cheap models hireble with smaller/no penalties while bigger models higher. Coupled with the moderate ss cost increase I wrote above it should go sinergic. This would free also the need of a "versatile" definition, since a model that show no variation in cost would be automatically a versatile model.
  11. I saw a thing no one mentioned, so I do... I noticed that armor no longer states a minimum of 1 damage. So, or there is a general rule about damage reduction that prevent not going to zero (and it's made to gain some free space on cards), or armor can effectively screen low damage much better...
  12. Yep, but remain the fact that if the costs are different and the first madter/totem is free, you will introduce a disparity...
  13. Yes, but it doesn't makes a lot of sense for me... This is obviously a discussion for the beta, but setting a cost that does work only if you hire a second master, it seems a vaste of design space... I mean, if I got a master and his titem for free, choosing the most expensive one gives obviously an edge. If instead all master+totem couples costs the same, then it should need that all those couples should be perfectly balanced. Cutted away the cache tool, that will be impossible, and it would lead again to choosing the most performant master again and again... The cache was the tool to fine balance a master (since its cost was normalized at 15 stones). I don't understand why putting away the cache (that is by itself a good move, since it simplify things for newbies expecially) setting the real cost of the model, and then ignoring it during hiring.... This system reintroduce an unuseful complication... It shouldn't be much more simple and straightforward and inline with new costing rules just to give a set amount of ss and let players buy whatever they wants??? 🤔
  14. Thanks! But.... I wasn't able to find the thread.... May someone post here a direct link??? 😜
  15. I don't understand this thing... I think it's not very in line with giving a cost to masters... I'll wait to see all the whole picture, but I would suggest to evaluate a different approach, such as giving 50ss + 20ss just for leader+totem, or directly 70ss all together... About generic totems, never really found any real play, except for those clearly underpriced such as Malifaux Child or Primordial Magic. So I sustain the idea of making them versatile non-totem models.
  • Create New...