ezramantis

This just came out... https://store.steampowered.com/app/845890/Moonbreaker/ "Moonbreaker" Has some interesting synergies to be discovered. I move all my dudes, you move all your dudes. Quick games. Push/pull effects and ability auras so positioning has some real importance. Games are won by either accumulating 5 points more than your opponent (by killing models and controlling specific zones) or by assassinating your opponents leader. It has a pretty well done custom paint job feature. It's scratching the itch for the moment. Hoping it develops and they add more game styles.

I make my own to help demo the game to folks. Or rather i make cardstock standees. For demos and trying out new crews. Cause the initial investment in the miniatures is an impediment for some to even try the game. Would love it if there were official pro manufactured versions. Like the "pathfinder pawns" sets. I'd buy those fo sho.

Thank you. The question arose during a game with a Brocken Spectre who used it's envelop in shadow attack action which reads, "target suffers 1 damage for each friendly shadow marker or friendly umbra model within 2" of it". We reasoned that, since most language in this game is quite specific and things are worded to mean exactly what they say, if the designers intended for us to tally shadow markers AND umbra models they would have used "and" as opposed to "or". I checked the rulebook under "this or that choices" but that only seemed to address the exclusive choices you alluded to. I likewise didn't see an answer in the faq (maybe i overlooked it) Later when looking at The Kurgan's Avalanche attack action ( "...suffer 1 damage for each model or terrain piece moved through this way...") it made me question our previous reasoning. Hopefully those examples provide appropriate specifics. I only worded my question in a more general way in an attempt to address all game effects that use this language once I recognized that there are several actions that use "each X or Y". Sorry if that created a hurdle. Thanks again

When an effect says to "for each X or Y" does this mean: A) choose either X or Y? Or B) add together X and Y? So for effects that deal damage for each X or Y in range, do you... A) deal X damage OR Y damage Or B) deal (X +Y) damage? Same for effects like "suffer 1 damage for each X or Y you move through"?

I just came across these and thought i'd share. Can't speak to quality or suitability but here they are. https://greaterthangames.com/product/tarot-card-sleeves/

The paint is great

I really appreciate how, even though it is not the most detailed scenery, it has a wonderful and charming aesthetic. The whole board ties together in a very consistent and cohesive way. It makes me want to worry less about the detail on my next terrain set and to have it be more like this.

We had the same considerations. That's why we have the setup i outlined. Closer to regular rules. And that's what i would kind of hope for in an official 3 player "mode"

Also, if you don't have a circular board, the important thing is that the deployment zones are equidistant from the center of the board. So on a square space just measure to find the center on the deployment zones. We've done this and just placed a marker there so it's clear to everyone where the deployment zone is

It'd be swell to get an official 3 player setup from wyrd. I think it would be a great help to budding malifaux groups to keep them from losing momentum. Or even just groups that find themselves with an odd number of players occasionally.

When we've played 3 player games in the past we divide a circular board up into 3 sections, as adrian suggested. (Its been awhile and i don't have the board handy so i cant remember if fhe diameter was 3' or slighty larger. I wanna say 40"?) We find the center point, draw a line, and divide in 60 degree increments. Every 3rd increment is a centerline and the ones between point to the center of the deployment zones. For deployment we make "half circles" centered on where the deployment zone marks intersect the board edge. Each deployment zone is equidistant from the center of the board. I think we've used a radius of 4-6" for these. The strat and scheme pool needs to be selected to avoid weirdness. We pick a strat that doesn't rely on just 1 opponent, and then 2 schemes that everyone plays. 1 scheme scores against the player to your left, the other against the player to your right. This ensures you are playing against both of your opponents. The center line for you is the two lines to the left and right of your deployment zone. The enemy table half is the 1/3 that has the targeted opponent's deployment zone. As far as not having "hidden schemes" it's never been a problem. With 2 opponents on the board there's always been enough going on strategically that not having to guess what people are doing has freed up brain space to consider the complexity added by a 3rd player (how many of my mooks defend vs left vs defend right vs score left/right/strat).

I'm with maniacal_cackle. A piece of paper, felt, plastic, what have you to define the area of the fog. Then place wispy bits on that area. I like using shapes cut from the thin clear plastic that packaging shells are made from. It defines the area without obscuring the playmat or terrain board underneath. This is how i do my forests and other severe terrain as well. I have a bunch of trees and rocks that I scatter about on pieces of green heathered felt. This setup allows me to move the trees/rocks during a game to accomodate model placement. You can also get clear vinyl at some fabric/craft stores if you'd like something more flexible and with a bit of grip. It's sometimes sold as a tablecloth cover or, i guess, for old ladies to make couch covers? Could even speckle some paint onto it to give it a visual difference from the mat below it without completely obscuring the mat. (Dang, that's a good idea. I'm gonna try that.)

This is how we've been playing it, because the objective seems to make more sense that way. It makes it confusing when you explain a rule to new players (like friendly/enemy) and then something like this comes up that randomly flies in the face of what you've previously explained to them. It hurts their (already taxing) learning process.

Is the strat marker that is dropped when a model discards an intel token... A) enemy to the model B) enemy to the opponent who is dropping the marker We keep reading that durn second paragraph and seeing it both ways. The wording is wonky. The rulebook says: "Enemy models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into the opponent’s Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by the opponent’s Crew. Every Ability, Action, and Trigger on a model’s Stat Card and Attached Upgrades treats the use of “friendly” and “enemy” from its point of view." So firstly, this is not on a model's stat card so we're not sure if the entire sentence in the strat should be read according to the model's point of view. If so it would be "A" above. But if not from the model's point of view, then who's? The opponent's, making it "B" above? And where can I find clarification for this to point to when explaining this strat to an opponent (especially one to whom I have already explained the model's point of view rule)? Enemy markers are those dropped by an opponent's crew, so since the opponent is dropping it, it would likewise be "A" above. This means that I kill an opponent's model, I drop a (friendly to me/enemy to them) marker and then they have to retrieve it to score points. Making this a strat where if i don't kill their models (or they don't kill their own models) no strat markers are dropped and they can't score points from the strat. Right? I'm gonna stop there, because if I go into all the arguments, interpretations, and justifications that we've explored I'll be here all day. Would someone clean up the second paragraph of this strat for me and give me rules to cite so that I can explain it to others definitively? Please and thank you

Thanks gang. It's been an interesting match so far.

The above scenario additionally assumes that there are no other models with Unionized within 3" of the defending model.

We're playing an Ironsides vs Ironsides game and are looking for assurances that we're doing this right. The Unionized ability doesn't differentiate between friendly and enemy. So if my model with Unionized attacks an enemy model within 3" that has Unionized, the enemy model gets a pos flip to it's wp or df. Ja?

I'm not a fan of the sculpts for will o' the wisp and adze. Love the rest of swampfiend keyword, and would like to own the whole set, but I just can't bring myself to buy those models. I have instead built proxies out of wire and cheap craftstore puffballs. If there's ever a resculpt though...

Yeah, me too

This just came up in my latest game so I figured I'd "reactivate" the thread and see if there was new information. We ruled the front edge of the model moves to the "center" of the marker cause it seemed the most balanced ruling and easy enough to approximate. After that point the model is (arguably) moving away from the center of the object.

I like HH, but people wanna play with their masters. Especially new players. Personally I like having a wider variety of leaders in the form of henchmen. I also realy like mixing up strats and schemes so HH gets stale for me quickly. Might be cool to play 35ss henchmen led games. Not sure how many summoners are out there outside of masters.

I've thought of it and I might do that one day. But honestly my reason for starting this thread was less about finding alternatives to 35ss games and more about exploring how to approach them in terms of crew building. There's something nice about fewer models on the table, especially for players who are new to skirmish gaming or aren't accustomed to the complexity of options and interactions that a typical game of malifaux presents.

To clarify dannydb, we DO play over several sessions and save between. We still only get 1 turn in at a time (and in a few instances have had to cut those short) that's how tight his schedule is haha

Perhaps, but at the rate we get to complete even 35ss games it'd take that much longer for 50ss. The 35ss turn fits just right into his schedule so it's nice to have a solid bookmark at the end of eaxh turn. Plus, i think this is a discussion worth having, since 35ss games are good for new players, players with fewer models, or players who just want to have a shorter game and still use their masters instead of Henchman as leaders.

I think we currently have an unspoken ban on summoning. We'll see. Our first game we both took summoning models to help make up for smaller model count and then laughed because the whole reason was to shorten game time. The power of summoner models in this size game is pretty universally pointed across all the faction discussions. A spoken ban may be necessary in our games eventually, but for now the point is to be able to try things out and have fun within our time constraints. Good advice though for official events, if I ever end up organizing them. Just too bad for new players, with fewer models that chose a summoner as their first master 😕