Suggestions for Future Errata

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Griffin839 said:

I'd like an errata to gaining grounds 2017 that limits the appearance of named characters to 1 round per tournament. War machine ended up going this route for the better and I fee malifaux has grown to the point where it also needs this rule. There are so many good and viable options but every list you see the same models because they are the "best".  Limiting the appearance of Howard, joss, nekima, papa loco, etc would make tournaments better experiences to play. 

I'm looking at the current Steamroller documents, and the statements from Privateer Press staff, and I think you're going to find that people disagree with your claim that it was for the better.

Playing a tournament blind folded or with one hand tied behind your back can be fun, or interesting, but it's not how balance issues are addressed.

 

[trikk]

39 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

Interesting, make the Rare characteristic apply to the tourney instead of just each round. I don't think I would want to do it unless I owned 3/4 of a Faction, or even more than once, but the novelty of the idea intrigues me.

How does it work with Summoning? Can you summon 2 hanged during a tournament? Or is summoning not included? How does it work with Ikiryo?

[Squirrelich]

2 minutes ago, trikk said:

How does it work with Summoning? Can you summon 2 hanged during a tournament? Or is summoning not included? How does it work with Ikiryo?

You and your logic! Stop it and let a man dream 
(I'm too lazy to completely hydrate this idea right now, but that is an excellent point)

[tomjoad]

Reason #2 why errata is a bad idea: people start thinking their bad ideas can/should/will be implemented.

[Mason]

2 minutes ago, tomjoad said:

Reason #2 why errata is a bad idea: people start thinking their bad ideas can/should/will be implemented.

People will suggest changes regardless of whether or not errata happens.

Even if it was a symptom of errata, it's a small price to pay for a more well balanced game.

[tomjoad]

Just now, Mason said:

People will suggest changes regardless of whether or not errata happens.

Even if it was a symptom of errata, it's a small price to pay for a more well balanced game.

But now they'll actually have some expectation that it will happen, and be upset when it does not. Added with the confusion caused by issuing new cards (or not, as the case currently is), I am pretty convinced that big erratas are not for the best, especially if they happen every 6 months.

[tomjoad]

5 minutes ago, Mason said:

People will suggest changes regardless of whether or not errata happens.

Even if it was a symptom of errata, it's a small price to pay for a more well balanced game.

And beyond what the person making the bad suggestion thinks, I no longer have confidence that Wyrd WON'T do something crazy, which I guess is a bigger issue.

[Math Mathonwy]

8 minutes ago, tomjoad said:

But now they'll actually have some expectation that it will happen, and be upset when it does not. Added with the confusion caused by issuing new cards (or not, as the case currently is), I am pretty convinced that big erratas are not for the best, especially if they happen every 6 months.

So your bad suggestion is to stop with the errata?

(tongue firmly in cheek, naturally)

[Cadaverousbirth]

26 minutes ago, tomjoad said:

But now they'll actually have some expectation that it will happen, and be upset when it does not. Added with the confusion caused by issuing new cards (or not, as the case currently is), I am pretty convinced that big erratas are not for the best, especially if they happen every 6 months.

We shall duel.

I think the majority portion of Wyrd's players are mature enough to handle the crushing rejection that they're idea didn't make it into circulation. Wyrd have already shown a tremendous amount of community engagement on and off the internet and are (generally, coffee depending) keen enough to hear some ideas from the people giving them money about what they want to give them money for.

Aaron has also stated that the errata's will be once a year, with the July (?) slot only for emergency game-breaking changes like Ratjoy that should be fixed. I don't expect to see the amount of FAQ in July as we did in January, but I do expect that if something is complete bollocks it will get addressed officially.

[tomjoad]

37 minutes ago, Cadaverousbirth said:

We shall duel.

I think the majority portion of Wyrd's players are mature enough to handle the crushing rejection that they're idea didn't make it into circulation. Wyrd have already shown a tremendous amount of community engagement on and off the internet and are (generally, coffee depending) keen enough to hear some ideas from the people giving them money about what they want to give them money for.

Aaron has also stated that the errata's will be once a year, with the July (?) slot only for emergency game-breaking changes like Ratjoy that should be fixed. I don't expect to see the amount of FAQ in July as we did in January, but I do expect that if something is complete bollocks it will get addressed officially.

I haven't seen that; I've seen the "we'll do this every 6 months" thing, but even an errata of this size annually would be a bad idea, imo. The number of people I meet who still don't know how Metal Gamin work, or how many stones Tannen costs, should be enough evidence we need that no system of information dissemination will be sufficient to clear up the confusion mass errata will cause.

[trikk]

11 minutes ago, tomjoad said:

I haven't seen that; I've seen the "we'll do this every 6 months" thing, but even an errata of this size annually would be a bad idea, imo. The number of people I meet who still don't know how Metal Gamin work, or how many stones Tannen costs, should be enough evidence we need that no system of information dissemination will be sufficient to clear up the confusion mass errata will cause.

If you`re a casual player it really doesn`t matter what rules you play.

If you`re not a casual player you`re up to date.

 

Same applies to Board Games.

[Cadaverousbirth]

I've got another one.

Von Schill's cache should be bumped up to 3 or maybe even 4. It's a small change but would reflect where he sits on the overall power curve of masters, especially within Outcasts alone. He is no where near the levels of Levi (hiring pool & damage) or Lynch (deck manipulation & damage).

[trikk]

Lynch is not an Outcast.

 

My only concern right now are Stuffed Piglets as I don`t think 6 2SS activations are fun to play against and they are way better than they should. 4Wds, non-mandatory explosion combined with 2SS is way too strong on a Rare 6 model.

[Griffin839]

4 hours ago, Cadaverousbirth said:

A TO could provide this rule in a tournament but I can not see it being part of an official document. It's far too limiting, even for models that aren't "the best" like Santiago Ortega. Malifaux is about its characters and while some are very good yes, the best are very expensive and you can play around them with some experience. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a bad game against a big beater.

I would not want to pay to play in a tournament if this was a rule. All this would do is reward players that have/buy everything (like me...) versus the new player that only has one box and a couple extra models. Bad. Bad. Bad.

I know it may seem like a knee jerk reaction but it's really not. I've felt this way for a very long time. I started playing Malifaux with 1st edition and played through 1.5 and on to present. I have everything for the arcanist faction and a lot of outcasts as well. I tend to play thematically and limit my list options intentionally to force myself to play the other models available to me. I could be that guy and take Howard and joss in every list, but I chose not to and the game is far more enjoyable for me and my opponents because of it. They get to play against cool "new" models that they never get to play against and I get the fun experience of keeping the game fresh and exciting for me.

This is why I feel such a rule would benefit the game. Tournaments are stale. The meta for 2e is well established and it's only after new releases that you feel any uncertainty. Everyone has played the game enough to know the best models and combos and takes them. There are a lot of good models that never see the light of day in this game because people only play the same thing every time. That's not good for the game. It makes it stale, turns it into rock paper sissors.

I also understand that it would force players to buy new models. But as a supporter of the game I don't think this is a bad thing. It would encourage sales in the local game stores which in turn would help motivate store owners to carry more product. 

[solkan]

16 minutes ago, Griffin839 said:

I know it may seem like a knee jerk reaction but it's really not. I've felt this way for a very long time. I started playing Malifaux with 1st edition and played through 1.5 and on to present. I have everything for the arcanist faction and a lot of outcasts as well. I tend to play thematically and limit my list options intentionally to force myself to play the other models available to me. I could be that guy and take Howard and joss in every list, but I chose not to and the game is far more enjoyable for me and my opponents because of it. They get to play against cool "new" models that they never get to play against and I get the fun experience of keeping the game fresh and exciting for me.

This is why I feel such a rule would benefit the game. Tournaments are stale. The meta for 2e is well established and it's only after new releases that you feel any uncertainty. Everyone has played the game enough to know the best models and combos and takes them. There are a lot of good models that never see the light of day in this game because people only play the same thing every time. That's not good for the game. It makes it stale, turns it into rock paper sissors.

None of that is solved by people taking the non-rare models instead of the rare models.  You get a new stale meta instead.

Quote

I also understand that it would force players to buy new models. But as a supporter of the game I don't think this is a bad thing. It would encourage sales in the local game stores which in turn would help motivate store owners to carry more product. 

So you think turning the game in to "Buy more models if you expect to play in a tournament" would help?

Counter prediction:  You see fewer new players because they see the cost of entry to the tournament rises.  Everyone else gets bored, and you stop playing because no one else shows up.

If you're bored, what you should be working toward is a new -alternate- format.  Because in an alternate format you do bizarre stuff like Henchman Hardcore or "Wallet Warrior Rare Limits".

[Cadaverousbirth]

@trikk Lynch is an outcast amongst my local scene.  I was just comparing the cache of 1 versus other masters with a lonely cache. I think Jack Daw has 2 or 3 right? Don't know that one. Schill is still too low compared to his own faction.

 

Sulkan has it. You can shake things up yourself among your local meta if you feel the game is getting stale for you, and that's great for you and your meta. It shouldn't be the rule for the entire Malifaux community. It would be a fun one-off tournament idea but I can not imagine that would be a popular choice, nor good for the health of the game and community.

Tournaments are competitive. In a competitive setting people generally take the most optimal choices to help their chances of doing well. You have the choice to play with whatever you want but there shouldn't be great limitations on what you can bring to each round beyond the base rules. 'Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmerica!

[sillybrian]

Maybe jumping the gun, but I think Zipp's Up and Away attack (whatever its called) should be limited to once per turn.  His gun is good, but being able to move 2 or 3 models an activation while avoiding all Df triggers seems a bit much.

I think the Mercenary list should be trimmed down and thinned out.  There are just too many merc options, and some make hardly any sense, like Burt or even Performer.  They just seem like faction advantages that should stay faction.

Badge of Office should prevent damage, not reduce... too many things deal damage which cannot be reduced for this to be worth 2ss I think.

These are just my newbie thoughts.  Loving the game overall!