What is the appeal of M3E?

[edopersichetti]

I think my favorite change would be a timeline advance - keeping mechanics as is, but rebooting some of the masters, even at different times, to keep up with the fluff. So if someone loses a leg, reduce his Wk stat. Someone learned some new trick - Rasputina has a new spell or something. etc.

We're seeing a bit of this with the new master updates (e.g. Pandora summoning Sorrows, for instance), but imagine on a larger scale (i.e. an entirely new master card).

[Math Mathonwy]

I think that Wave 5 models are already sorta plumbing the depths of the design space. Models from Waves 1-3 were IMO mostly such that you could make a pretty good guess about their performance by just reading the rules or by having your opponent explain before the game what the model is about in a couple of sentences. But Waves 4 and especially 5 have such really weird designs and complex interactions going on that I need to play a few games with a model before I can say anything about it's worth.

I mean, look at the Tanuki or the Bayou Smuggler or Serena Bowman. They are really weird desings, IMO. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes the game more complex and more difficult to understand and keep pace with and if there's too many such really weird models, the game becomes really difficult to master.

[wobbly_goggy]

3rd edition? Thumbs down. (IMO, lots of IMOS ahead!)

Many comments seem to relate to new versions of other games, or what could be brought in from other games. But IMO the core card mechanics of malifaux, strats and schemes, the sta cards... these are all bang on.

The way we're going with Gaining Grounds is an amazing idea! The change in strats and schemes changes the way you play each year, gives you a whole set of new experiences, and before it can get dull, you've got a new set. There's nothing to say you can't carry on using old GG sets or Core Rulebook sets either.

My only 'concern' is that  Malifaux is getting a bit full. Disadvantage: so much stuff to get/learn. Advantage: It seems like we're getting each play style and type of shenanigans covered by each faction to some extent, which means a level playing field and no super powered factions.

A 'cleaning up' of the rulebook to include all the erratas/FAQs and so forth would not be a bad idea necessarily, but it's certainly not urgent.

After playing for a number of years (M1-M2E) I am way more excited by the new master upgrades and the new style of play than I would have been by a new edition this year. As someone mentioned, waiting for a while to use the toys you already have is no fun.
Another game I play (albeit sci-fi) had a new edition a couple of years ago, after M2E came out. I was expecting an overhaul and improvement like I saw with M2E, because frankly both games needed it IMO... Malifaux got but one,  the other game didn't. I was disappointed (it's still a great game btw...)

In short:
M1 needed M2E.
M2E does not need M3E ... IMO

[LunarSol]

Games solidify as players learn what is above and below the power curve.  As they solidify they start to feel stagnant and traditionally edition changes break up that stagnation significantly, though players often have unrealistic expectations for the new edition.  A lot of the demand for a new edition is simply because historically that was the only time you could expect significant changes due to the complications of errata.  Technology is rapidly making edition changes less and less necessary though.  The game's core engine is fine and really doesn't need much changing, but it could be a little more consistent.  

Overall, the main things I'd look to see in a new edition are:

• A break to move towards digital rules and cards.  This doesn't require a new edition, but its kind of a nice time to switch over in general.
• New rules concerning elevation in general.  Movement and LOS are fine on a 2D map, but struggle with more interesting terrain.
• Maybe a tweak to Jokers.  Spending a stone to cheat a Black could help with it flipping on an important zero.  Red I'm less sure on.
• Restructure action timing wording to clearly distinguish the order of events for complex interactions.
• Categorize conditions a bit to provide some granularity on rules that interact with them.
• Remove the Avatar rules from the core rules.

As for model changes; the obvious thing would be to pull some of the "fix" upgrades into the base card.  I'd also take the opportunity to lean heavier on keywords synergies so there is more design space in the game in general.  The game needs a bit more emphasis on themed crews to be able to expand.

[Bengt]

On 12/09/2017 at 11:39 AM, Math Mathonwy said:

I think that Wave 5 models are already sorta plumbing the depths of the design space. Models from Waves 1-3 were IMO mostly such that you could make a pretty good guess about their performance by just reading the rules or by having your opponent explain before the game what the model is about in a couple of sentences. But Waves 4 and especially 5 have such really weird designs and complex interactions going on that I need to play a few games with a model before I can say anything about it's worth.

I mean, look at the Tanuki or the Bayou Smuggler or Serena Bowman. They are really weird desings, IMO. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes the game more complex and more difficult to understand and keep pace with and if there's too many such really weird models, the game becomes really difficult to master.

Yeah, Malifaux seems to currently follow a philosophy where everything new has to have extra special unique snowflake mechanics. Other games content themselves with have slightly different mechanics and diversify with the soft values, i.e. visuals and backstory. E.g. 40 k has like a bazillion different guys who will shoot you in the face, they vary a bit in how hard and far they shoot and how resilient they are, but mostly they just look different. As Malifaux is no slouch (IMO) when it comes to visuals I think the game would be healthier if they went that way. The current trend is taking it further and further towards Gotcha: The Game in my opinion.

[Kadeton]

31 minutes ago, Bengt said:

Yeah, Malifaux seems to currently follow a philosophy where everything new has to have extra special unique snowflake mechanics. Other games content themselves with have slightly different mechanics and diversify with the soft values, i.e. visuals and backstory. E.g. 40 k has like a bazillion different guys who will shoot you in the face, they vary a bit in how hard and far they shoot and how resilient they are, but mostly they just look different. As Malifaux is no slouch (IMO) when it comes to visuals I think the game would be healthier if they went that way.

I've always felt like models should get more interesting and unique mechanics as they increased in cost. It's fine (IMO) for 10-13ss models to have a lot of weird things they can do that significantly warp the game around them - there aren't that many models in that range, they're often big centrepieces that look like they should be doing the special stuff, and you're paying a lot for them so they feel like they should have a big impact. It's a lot less manageable when it's the 4-7ss models that bring the unusual mechanics.

[wobbly_goggy]

On 9/13/2017 at 6:11 PM, LunarSol said:

 

• New rules concerning elevation in general.  Movement and LOS are fine on a 2D map, but struggle with more interesting terrain. 
• Maybe a tweak to Jokers.  Spending a stone to cheat a Black could help with it flipping on an important zero.  Red I'm less sure on. 

Point one - yes

Point two - VETO! No way! This is one of the best things about Malifaux! The fact you can get screwed on your best move.... that element of luck that doesn't dictate the game like it does with all dice games, but adds flavour to the game.
Remember, it's Malifaux - bad things happen!
The Jokers mechanic also gives so much scope for tactics around keeping/discarding/using them, card cycling mechanics, playing for double neg flips when BJ has been and so forth...
That definitely has to stay!!!!

[trikk]

If I would change anything about Jokers it would be red dealing severe instead of severe + min

[LunarSol]

I think the spike damage is important, but it could be slightly more controlled and have less odd interactions if it was a flat increase instead of dealing two keyword damage words.  I'd not go to bat for a change really and any change I'd support would be costly and limited.  I'd argue before removing the weak damage I'd like models damage prevent against both halves of the damage for example.

I'm a little more in favor of a way to keep the black joker from completely ruining a Master who has an important (0) as part of their activation, but even there it's just on my radar more than anything.

[Merchant]

i'd just like to see 0 cost upgrades integrated into their owners as well as revisiting lesser used/older units. Get some balance changes in here and there, where stuff has fallen through the cracks. 

[-Loki-]

15 minutes ago, Merchant said:

i'd just like to see 0 cost upgrades integrated into their owners as well as revisiting lesser used/older units. Get some balance changes in here and there, where stuff has fallen through the cracks. 

The problem is, some of the 0 cost upgrades were done without adding to the unit needing a buff. For example, the Monks of the Low REiver upgrade attaches to another model that can take upgrades and buffs Monks of the Low River within 12".

Also revisiting older models is better done through errata. You don't need a whole new edition to buff some underused models.

[Merchant]

1 minute ago, -Loki- said:

. You don't need a whole new edition to buff some underused models.

I agree, I wasn't advocating for m3e or m2.5  I just want the current stuff working a little better.

[Sybaris]

Personally as long as it's story driven and thematic, i don't mind the 3E, in fact i was starting to think that the new masters had some insanely convoluted rules. Now i know that Malifaux attracts people who like complexity and depth, but there is sometimes a brilliant balance with simple yet deep rulesets. Not everyone wants to be tested on their memory every game, and loose because of some forgotten loophole.

And there is competition as well to keep in mind, the skirmish market is in the sights of GW quite clearly since it saw how much $ it can make with its games (Shadespire and Kill team)

So bottom line is i guess i am happy about 3E, because frankly, if i was able to memorize most of the models rules, i couldn't ask that of my mates...and that put them at a direct disadvantage in this game.

 

[WWHSD]

44 minutes ago, Sybaris said:

Personally as long as it's story driven and thematic, i don't mind the 3E, in fact i was starting to think that the new masters had some insanely convoluted rules. Now i know that Malifaux attracts people who like complexity and depth, but there is sometimes a brilliant balance with simple yet deep rulesets. Not everyone wants to be tested on their memory every game, and loose because of some forgotten loophole.

And there is competition as well to keep in mind, the skirmish market is in the sights of GW quite clearly since it saw how much $ it can make with its games (Shadespire and Kill team)

So bottom line is i guess i am happy about 3E, because frankly, if i was able to memorize most of the models rules, i couldn't ask that of my mates...and that put them at a direct disadvantage in this game.

 

I guess with Nico dead we needed a new King of the Necromancers. Way to step up Sybaris.

[Clockwork_Fish]

18 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I guess with Nico dead we needed a new King of the Necromancers. Way to step up Sybaris.

Clearly, this thread was ahead of its time and died too young, its genius unappreciated.

 

1 hour ago, Sybaris said:

Personally as long as it's story driven and thematic, i don't mind the 3E, in fact i was starting to think that the new masters had some insanely convoluted rules. Now i know that Malifaux attracts people who like complexity and depth, but there is sometimes a brilliant balance with simple yet deep rulesets. Not everyone wants to be tested on their memory every game, and loose because of some forgotten loophole.

And there is competition as well to keep in mind, the skirmish market is in the sights of GW quite clearly since it saw how much $ it can make with its games (Shadespire and Kill team)

So bottom line is i guess i am happy about 3E, because frankly, if i was able to memorize most of the models rules, i couldn't ask that of my mates...and that put them at a direct disadvantage in this game.

 

GW's renewed, if somewhat bizarrely scatterebrained interest in skirmish games (Necromunda is fun but haphazardly constructed and Kill Team seems to be directly competing with it), will never become their focus.  But it shows that skirmish games are becoming more of a staple in tabletop gaming.  In my area, Infinity is probably the healthiest gaming community after Age of Sigmar.

[WWHSD]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Fish said:

Clearly, this thread was ahead of its time and died too young, its genius unappreciated.

 

GW's renewed, if somewhat bizarrely scatterebrained interest in skirmish games (Necromunda is fun but haphazardly constructed and Kill Team seems to be directly competing with it), will never become their focus.  But it shows that skirmish games are becoming more of a staple in tabletop gaming.  In my area, Infinity is probably the healthiest gaming community after Age of Sigmar.

It does seem kind of odd that they are putting out so many different, not compatible, skirmish scale games so close to each other. 

It does seem like Kill Team has the porential to catch on. Using the same models as 40K is a huge deal. There’s a lot of players that essentially already own everything they need to start playing and most of the people I know have enough extra models that came with box sets or whatever that they could set up a friend or two with an initial squad to get into the game.

From what I’ve seen GW games are relatively straight forward to play with sinple rules. The complexity of the games come from the sheer number of models available and the specials rules and the army building options. The basics of the game can be taught to some one quockly and have then playing in just a few minutes.

The model count is low enough that you can get enough models to play painted in a night or two and have a full roster painted up over a couple of weekends. There are a few factions that get you everything you need for about $50-60

The smaller foot print, and shorter setup and play times make it ideal for running tournaments or games at a convention. The 20 model roster that you build 100 point squads from once you know what faction you are playing against and the details of the encounter should allow players to bring models that reduce the number of one sided mismatches.

The smaller overall model pool as well as rules for all models in the base book instead of faction specifc books makes the game more approachable and makes players less reliant on their opponent being correct about the rules for their models.

I’m not a big GW fan but I am looking forward to seeing how the game develops.If GW can keep the game cheap and accessible without a lot of cash grab gotchas I think they’ve got a nice gateway skirmish game on their hands.

[jerhien]

Personally I am beyond excited for M3E. I think this is a chance to really clean up a lot of things in the game that create negative play experiences for people.

Standardization, streamlined play, and reducing the gotchya's are the things I'm most excited for.

[Blastaar]

15 hours ago, WWHSD said:

It does seem kind of odd that they are putting out so many different, not compatible, skirmish scale games so close to each other. 

It does seem like Kill Team has the porential to catch on. Using the same models as 40K is a huge deal. There’s a lot of players that essentially already own everything they need to start playing and most of the people I know have enough extra models that came with box sets or whatever that they could set up a friend or two with an initial squad to get into the game.

From what I’ve seen GW games are relatively straight forward to play with sinple rules. The complexity of the games come from the sheer number of models available and the specials rules and the army building options. The basics of the game can be taught to some one quockly and have then playing in just a few minutes.

The model count is low enough that you can get enough models to play painted in a night or two and have a full roster painted up over a couple of weekends. There are a few factions that get you everything you need for about $50-60

The smaller foot print, and shorter setup and play times make it ideal for running tournaments or games at a convention. The 20 model roster that you build 100 point squads from once you know what faction you are playing against and the details of the encounter should allow players to bring models that reduce the number of one sided mismatches.

The smaller overall model pool as well as rules for all models in the base book instead of faction specifc books makes the game more approachable and makes players less reliant on their opponent being correct about the rules for their models.

I’m not a big GW fan but I am looking forward to seeing how the game develops.If GW can keep the game cheap and accessible without a lot of cash grab gotchas I think they’ve got a nice gateway skirmish game on their hands.

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. 

[Sybaris]

I don't think we have to worry about the flavor of Malifaux since it's Wyrd we're talking of. That said, complexity can become a barrier to entry though, and over time Malifaux has become (i dare say) overly complex and sprawled. That is probably one of the big thing they want to change with 3E, because the easier a game is to pick up, the better the odds of people trying it and then maybe getting new customers to buy miniatures.

Depth is an entire other topic and we have many examples of simple yet very deep games all across the gaming world. Easy to learn, hard to master is a great line to work with when developing rule sets.

[WWHSD]

30 minutes ago, Blastaar said:

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. 

From what I’ve heard, GW is saying that the tactics cards will be sold seperately and since they aren’t part of a constructed deck like the cards from Shadespire are that they will be also published online. Having the cards isn’t a requirement, it’s just a handy way of having the rules available without needing to dig through books.

Until things actually get released it remains to be seen if that’s true or just a rumor. We should know in a few weeks how everything pans out.

As for Malifaux, I suspect that the semi-retirement of models is being done so that they can continue to add masters to the game without needing to add a master to each faction to keep the pool of masters available in tournaments the same. Rotating masters in and out and changing up their faction allegences seems like a good way to keep the game fresh without creating as much bloat as would happen if models were only ever added and always stayed in the same faction.

I would not be surprised if the content of the Dead Man’s Hand (I think that’s what Wyrd is calling it) changed every year and that the changes are as much gameplay related as they are story driven.

[Atriedes]

Some preliminaries. I'm VERY new. I've only run through the game, in a very basic sense, twice. So yes, reeeeeally new.

I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I've only done skimming of reading about M3e. at's awesome too. So if it's painfully obvious and I missed it entirely-- I apologize. 

Where can I find more information about hiring out of faction models? I just recently bought the Dark Debts box to use with my Neverborn and the set is going to be Ten Thunders only, instead of duel. 

Many please and thank yous in advance. 

[Adran]

Honestly we don't know. From what people have picked up at gen con, you can hire out of faction models that match your masters keywords. So a little similar to the infiltration ability. There is going to be a small penalty to hire in faction but out of theme models. There doesn't appear to be any other out of faction hiring. Whilst we know lynch is only ten thunder, we don't know about illuminated, Mr graves and Mr tanner, beckoners and depleted. I'm pretty sure lynch will hire them, but if any stay neverborn is just guess work at the moment. 

[Atriedes]

Thank you, Adran. Much appreciated!

I'm going to refrain from buying anything further until we know more.