Yipikayey

Hi, long time no see! Well i have been thinking about returning now with 3rd edition, but mostly i would like to ask where i can find information about rules, how to hire etc. About 2nd i ended up disliking how to build your crew you had to get boxes everywhere, and many times your master core box was useless. Has this changed ? How so ?

Depression on Dora allows you, on turns when you get the cards for it, to do 2+ paralyzed reliabily. It's pretty amazing, specially if you have a widow weaver to lower that tresshold on how high your cards must be for you to be able to guarantee they are going through. Yes, you could use stones for that, but there is no game where i don't use depression on pandora atleast once, making up for its cost.

Okey, i was going to read and answer you. I thought you were answering my post, and instead you just chose a silly analogy and ignored everything else which was the content on my post ? Way to go, i guess, nothing like cherrypicking. And about scientific fields. While you might think there should not be competition, it exists, and it is actually how we can accept a scientific consensus as factual (ie: climate change), because we know that thanks to that competition, if the researchs presented were skewed, biased, etc, we would have scientists eager to take on it. It does not deter research, but the contrary, so i don't know why when i am using it as an analogy to what netlisting does for the game, as pushing the boundaries ahead, you think the analogy is not right, and talk about science as a whole, when that's not what or why i brought it up.

I don't have time for a full response, but about the analogy, Do you think there is not competition in research fields ? I will read the rest later, cheers.

I completely disagree with the notion that it is uncompetitive. I understand where you are coming from, but i have not met a single player who is good at a game where tactics matter, which is not good at the strategy part aswell. Being able to copy lists actually is just a mechanism for new players, or people trying out new masters, to have some groundwork to begin with and be able to catch up with current players on a reasonable amount of time and games. It's like saying that the ability to use formulaes discovered by Einstein, makes you a worse physicist just because you didn't discover them yourself. And i believe that most of the decision making should have importance during the game, not before it. Otherwise we would be playing robots vs robots, where i build my robot, you build yours and let them smash each other. We both know that's not how malifaux works, so while i can understand the to games like for example wh40k, or fantasy, where the tactics are very limited and the game is mostly decided on deployment and army list creation, but here it actually pushes competition ahead as more people are able to catch up quickly, and malifaux learning curve is big enough as it is. And well, the game progress aswell, i am pretty sure that the level of play at release was much worse than it is now, and obviously, it will be even higher in the future. It reminds me of the infinity's players motto "it's not your list, it's you". @SJW nails it, the reason why he feels (i think) that he has an advantadge when playing against netlisting, is because for the very reason i said before, the level of play increases as people discover new things, they become the standard, and people then learn to beat the new standard. Rinse and repeat.

People will gravitate towards fixed lists no matter what you do. From a competition standpoint, it's the most rational thing to do. Either you flip coin to see if you can capitalize on metagaming and winning your opponent's on the selection crew, or you play something which is kind of like a take all comers. The first option seems awesome, but it's the second option the one you can really practice for.

Or when you have a choice, always assume your opponent has the best cards and best brains. Kinda like if you were facing Donald Trump.

Thanks That's me, I know no boundaries.

Sry to interrupt, where can i check the nova results ?

I would really like an outcast themed fate deck. Oh well, the new ones look gorgeous anyways

I do this with every master i buy. It also helps to get the hang on cards before playing against someone, where you would feel more pressured to not waste time reading your cards properly. It is also very useful to learn how to use your pushes, activation order, how the combo work, etc, etc... @OP If i were you, i would listen to the scheme and stones podcast if you haven't, and play the exact same crew over and over and over and over. The biggest mistake i see people to do, is to wildly change their range of models often, so they never really get a grip on how they work. Lilith can do that because the list is pretty flexible on itself. The list is: Lilith --- Beckon, Wings (Aether)* Nekima Doppleganger Johan --- Retribution eye Mr Graves Primordial magic Terror tot Mysterious effigy (terror tot)** *Assassination is on schemes, or if you want to keep lilith safe ** You can favor the terror tot for a second scheme runner if you want to or you don't have the mysterious effigy. The effigy is good because it allows you to push away from charges with lilith and keep her safe overal.. It is also difficult to give specific advice, because we don't know what you do.

I don't think anyone really disagrees that to measure the skill in a particular game where both players give their best, a 10 VP system is better than just a tertiary result such as W/D/L. I certainly agree in tournaments which are big, give seeds, and have enough rounds. But community events such as tournaments, specially small ones, you want as many people as possible to play the tournaments, and then you have to compromise between all the people around to have a healthy amount of players on them, and for everyone to have a positive experience. If you are brand new, and expect to place well in a tournament, of course your expectations are too high, but a more reasonable expectation is to atleast have fun and decent games. So if you want to for people who just want an excuse, to play 3 games in one day, and have fun with buddies, a system which rewards big victories will result in poor experiences for those players. And you not only need, but you also want those players to continue engaged within the community. But i don't think you are putting enough thought on how people feel about those games. I am a very competitive players, so for me it's not a problem, but for other person, can perfectly re-think why go to a tournament in the first place, since he doesn't enjoy the games he will have there, and just play with his closest pals only, and the end result long term is a fragmentation in the community, and complete insularity. Just because there were people who wanted the small tournaments to be the best representation on competition as possible. Obviously, this is all based on context. Some people might live in a city where there are like 4-5 FLGS which run tournaments often, where this won't be a big problem, and there are other people who play in zones where at best there are 20-30 players, and only 4-5 are competitive. It's politics like usual, you need to find a compromise for the good of the community, and there will always be people who will lose a little, and others will win some. Specially for a 3 round tournament, where VP's between players who didn't face each other, really won't tell you much about how they ranked. Your performance on a given tournament can't be measured with perfect accuracy to be compared to others, so there will be always little grievances on who placed 2nd, 3rd, 4th... etc. If 2 people won all their games that day, if both don't play each other in a final game, the result will not be exact anyways. Which is why, while people agree that VPs is a better system to measure, it is not certain or factual, and therefore can be scrapped if expectations of a good chunk of the people attending to the tournament is that they don't want games where they will completely crushed in a sacrifice for the VP Gods

Simple questions, yet quite not, but i think it is easier and more useful to pin down where people doesn't play leveticus, rather than where he shines: - Which faction you deters you the most against Leveticus ? Does it stop from fielding him ? - Which strategies stops you from taking leveticus ? Why ? - And finally, which schemes do you find the harder to ? Will any of you stop you from taking leveticus ? If so, which one ?

Yeah, i understand that bloating the card space when playing is not good either. The compromise is not easy to find. From a game balance perspective bloating seems better, from a gameplay standpoint, maybe it doesn't.

If the upgrades didn't cost the opportunity to use a different upgrade, the system would be fine (not perfect). That way they would be pretty much errata's to the card.

Yeah, and having the positive flips to damage allows you to easilly get red jokers into what you want to kill, which she can easilly with tangle shadows and gets drawns often enough due to 8 cards. The only thing i find it's a trap, is to use your own created forests to charge through them. You rarely will want to do that.

Just play with what you have until you feel like you know how to play them. When you do: Dora podcast http://schemesandstones.podbean.com/e/episode-39-master-spotlight-pandora/ Dora on budget https://schemesandstones.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/building-on-a-budget-neverborn/ I personally prefer Dora with voices, deppression, nekima, lilitu, dopple, graves, widow weaver and primordial magic. Then upgrades or 2 insidious madness for scheme running, removing lilitu, but honestly i only play dora on Squatters rights or Turf war.

First, i am all for growing the community and help each other. Maybe we see things differently, but i don't find handicapping one self, to be an increase of competitivity, but the oppossite, since you would be downplaying your own skill to alleviate the skill gap. And competition in these kind of games is all about getting a fairest result according to each other's skill. If you downplay your skill, the end result will be skewed, and hence where people who want to measure skill (something completely expected on a tournament imo) may have a problem with it. This is to say, that how the tournaments are handled is not an easy one, since there are many different things about what different players may expect from a tournament. I had played enough games to know that if i am a newbye on a game, i will go to a tournament with little expectations on how i end up in the rankings, but i expect the swiss system to offer me one or a couple of decent games, while i also get to meet people and a lot of feedback about how to play.

The reason why people can be actively hateful about it, is because it discourages full competition. While i don't play that way in local tournaments, i can understand why undermining the competitiveness can lead to resistance.

Correct. I already had done that in tournaments for infinity, when the system was only a win/loss. Against a newbye, i would maintain the suspension of belief, by purposefully having a close game and make them feel as such, while also teaching them some things, because i wouldn't get punished by it. Once the whole concept of VPs, and different tiers of victorys (the system is similar, top 10 VPs, 5+ VP differential = 3 Points, 1-4 VP differential = 2 Points, this matters a lot), the system gets more competitive, and therefore harder to handicap yourself and still have chances. If you reward games for how close they are only, while i see that your intention is to force everyone to handicap themselves to be able to accomodate newbies, you are also strangling the competition in a way which is transparently forced, something that won't have a good reception, and i don't think it's fair. I have to admit, that the most interesting games for me, has been sound defeats were i managed to come back to get a decent score and my opponent didn't give me an easy time, since those are what i consider hard fought, not a 5-5 result in a paper. I say this, because hard fought game is hardly something that you can transalte into a result most of the time. It is true, that if you increase the number of rounds, on a small number of players, it will increase how fair the result will be. And to be honest, that's the only thing we know that really works with swiss pairings, and a rank system. But for regular store tournaments, where there are 8-16 players, on 3 rounds, i think that people shouldn't worry that much about who gets 2nd and who gets 3rd, because the only one who will get a somewhat accurate result are the player who ended first (he won the 3 games), and the who ended last (he lost 3 games). Anything else is somewhat accurate, but kinda flippy, and you can try to change things, but you will keep getting the same level of accuracy because the game sample will still be too low.

If you want to improve the experience for new players, reduce the max differential possible. It won't stop people defeating new players, but they won't require to squeeze them in order to compete. I said it before, the problem is that a 10 VP differential is really big so you get a big fat check if you happen to face a new player. But if you really want a fair system, you would require swiss pairings from round 1 using a ranking system, and that's not within the realm of possible in most areas.

The problem i see with the system is more about how small the system is. Win/Draw/Loss with a 10 VP potential differential can swing too much the tie breakers in favor of random luck. The problem i see in your example is that it is at 3 rounds with very little people. You are on the extreme where it is the all winner take it all. 4 Rounds and you would get Edgar facing Buster for example, and potentially also tying up with Abby if she screws up her last round. Also you are taking for granted that Edgar fought better players than Buster, which is not neccessarily the case. I mean, it is an example made to suit your point. I acknowledge it can happen, but the oppossite can be true aswell (hard fought battles because he was a worse player than Buster). The system itself, would be quite cumberstone to manage while keeping swiss pairings. Not impossible, just annoying for the little reward which suffers from the same very issues.

Hmm, Sue ability would remove the Mindless Zombies also against nikodemus ?

Thank you very much for the very well explained answer, and all the work into it. Crystal clear now. Cheers.

Hi, i had been playing for about a month and half now. Enjoying the game a lot. I play neverborn, but i feel like i had been missplaying some stuff, and i wanted to see if you guys can clear it for me. Pandora's Fading memory push: - I had been using it with self loathing and self harm. Is it a correct interpretation of the requirement as an oppossed Wp duel, or has to be pandora the one using her willpower for it work, therefore only working with incites and when "defending" from opponent's actions ? Ok just saw this and learned how misery really works... i feel so dirty now : Dreamer and hungering darkness "buried": - I had been using it as i can activate it after coming back with the (0) from Lord chompy bits or in Huggy's case, after i manage to unbury him with rising sun. I haven't found anywhere why i can't use it, since it says removed from play. But in dreamer's case is the one that had me thinking it can't work that way, since i could chain spawn lord chompys ad infinitum with tantrum. I checked the FAQs, the rulebook, etc, and i had been unable to find an answer. So the question is, does a model that has been activated before being buried, keep counting as activated after being unburied ? Cheers and thank you in advance for the responses. By the way, loving the game, cheers to the Wyrd's staff.