Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

About Blastaar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The problem with "negative play experiences" being so very subjective is that you cannot design a game that way. If every little thing that an individual may not like is removed, you get a shallow game, just to protect someone's feelings. It is quite easy to dislike something your opponent is doing. Someone may dislike summoning, or using a deck of cards instead of dice. Should those be changed as well?
  2. Agreed. The basics of Malifaux are easy enough to grasp. Taking time to improve is a rewarding experience, and useful for a game to have any kind of longevity. I like games that engage my brain as well, and take thought to play- it's simply more fun. The more decisions to make, the wider variety in situations and events that can occur on the table, the better. This trend of making games widely accessible may be profitable in the short term, but it completely misses the point of gaming. To have fun. Every game company's first priority should be to make the most enjoyable game they can. If it doesn't appeal to everyone, that is okay. It's awfully refreshing to hear the folks over at City State Entertainment acknowledging that- their goal is to make the best game with their (great) ideas they can, for the people who will enjoy it. Not to become a multi-billion dollar company. Because they still have passion for gaming. Which has become incredibly rare today, sadly.
  3. So now summoning is a flat once per turn? I can't say I'm fond of this. Sure, it stops summoning masters from just sitting there making models all game, but it might have been more interesting, and allowed for more design space for 3rd edition going forward, if the number of summons possible per turn could vary depending on the master. This solution is too homogenous, IMO.
  4. I don't know about that. Sure, the abilities have to be written out because everyone has unique ones, but it seems easier and smoother to say Action uses X AP, Model possesses a total of Y AP than to add things like "this model can't take any further action this turn."
  5. So Wyrd's intention at the moment is to remove AP? But why? The AP system is great- IMO it's always better to write a mechanic in the core rules than to write things out long-form on unit cards or pages in the rulebook.
  6. Painting, while enjoyable, takes time and effort, and the end goal is playing games with those models. The enjoyment of painting and the time and effort required at best balance each other out. How many game models would sell if they weren't tied to the experience of playing games? The goal is to play games with those models. To reach that goal takes your time and effort with a brush. By your reasoning, companies like Wyrd should charge even higher prices for their kits, because we aren't just receiving plastic in the box, we get the privilege of spending as few or as many hours as we choose painting them. Painting is not part of the value- especially considering that paints and brushes are not free.
  7. There is no complexity whatsoever in GW games- at least, not their current editions. And they have had cash grab gotchas available for KT from day one, with "tactics" cards that are only available in pricey boxed sets, as well as missing options that will surely appear in "expansions" soon. Let's hope Wyrd stays true to what Malifaux is, and doesn't go that route. The faction changes for various masters may be less story-based and more intended to push us to make new required purchases, for example. Make positive changes/fixes, sure, but keep the depth and flavor, and make products we want to buy, not things we have to buy.
  8. I certainly hope that rendition of the stat cards is changed: the artwork has no business taking up 2/3s of it, the formatting is off, and the actual rules parts are a little difficult to read. As a game aid it's a failure. Keep the current version it does its job well- don't mess with it just to appeal to people who value style over substance. Gameplay first.
  9. This right here is why, for games, it's better to go with a setting, rather than telling a story. Settings don't invalidate people's models or favorite characters, they allow players to tell their own stories instead. Those that have the imagination and don't need the devs to hold their hands, that is.
  10. After what some other games have done, I can't help but be concerned after reading what Wyrd is proposing to do, and how they are expressing it. I do hope you're right.
  11. Uh-oh.... I have to be honest, I picked up several red flags in the announcement. Please don't streamline or simplify the game too much, the depth is what makes it fun.
  • Create New...