Jump to content
Khyodee

Schemes & Stones Musing on M3E

Recommended Posts

On 1/9/2018 at 5:19 AM, Fetid Strumpet said:

I’d also disagree with the idea they are doing away with duel faction. I hate duel faction but it has been relatively popular and has been a good income booster for them. I cannot imagine they would get rid of it. If anything they would just get rid of factions entirely.

Have you read the fluff in book 5? Either dual faction is gone, or the fluff and the rules are going to have nothing to do with each other from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Shadowdragon said:

Have you read the fluff in book 5? Either dual faction is gone, or the fluff and the rules are going to have nothing to do with each other from now on.

Keep in mind that stories have historical aspect - our games and rules do not.

A master died recently, two more are incarcerated and we still can play them. Hell, I can give my Sonnia both Cherufe's Imprint and Cherufe's Parting Gift, or The Mask and No More Masks :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shadowdragon said:

Have you read the fluff in book 5? Either dual faction is gone, or the fluff and the rules are going to have nothing to do with each other from now on.

Fluffwise::

  • XXX lost limbs in Nythera,
  • XXX is killed & XXX is shot in the head in the last Chronicles,
  • XXX & XXX were incarcerated,
  • XXX was seemingly rejected from his/her second faction,
  • XXX is growing up,
  • XXX revealed his/her true allegiances...
  • The Guild lost its oppressive/repressive image and many of its stakeholders are represented in a more positive way

There are strong hints towards a fluff rupture. I personally welcome it, it keeps the Malifaux world dynamic and the books interesting to read. The only point I don't like is the change in the Guild role because it is what imho makes Malifaux what it is.

A fluff rupture is a good prelude to a change of edition though, and/or a chance to issue new sculpts.

Without an edition change, I don't know how they will keep correlating rules with fluff though.

Gamewise:

  • Indeed some models are overlapping but not as many as one may think, especially if you value themed crews when you play.
  • Upgrades are very hit and miss, some are almost always taken, some are never taken. The 0SS upgrades from book 3 were a very bad idea.
  • Some rules may require a rewrite (terrain for example) & timing should be clearer at times.
  • Erratas keep coming up but are annoying to handle in terms of physical cards. The last one was ambitious but not so satisfying for models that were badly designed to begin with.
  • GG tries new stuff.
  • Some Book 4 masters induced balance issues in their factions, heavily competing with other faction choices (Sandeep & Nelly being the prime examples).

I am not so sure there is a need for M3E immediately. I am more curious about what they can add in terms of models now that every faction has had its recruitment holes filled.

So all in all, with TOS being released in 2018, I doubt they will handle a M3E before 2019, although book 6 will require a good deal of creativity to be interesting modelwise without invalidating older models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, -Loki- said:

Tell me, did 1.5E require redesigning every unit and reissuing every unit card over 2 years like 2E did?

A 2.5E can be used to clean up the issues in the ruleset without feeling the need to do something drastic that comes with a full edition change.

No, it involved redesigning most units and mailing them into Wyrd to receive new cards.

Which I seriously doubt Wyrd will ever do again (the mailing in for new cards).

So yes, 1.5 absolutely had new cards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 3:59 PM, Lalochezia said:

No, it involved redesigning most units and mailing them into Wyrd to receive new cards.

Which I seriously doubt Wyrd will ever do again (the mailing in for new cards).

So yes, 1.5 absolutely had new cards.

 

Doubt they'd do the sending in for new cards again, given that you can do the cards POD, download them from the website, or just use the app.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game needs some ground-up re-works, and a heavy eye on standardization. Dual faction masters were a cool idea but are inherently a bit problematic.

I dunno, the game definitely feels like it needs a new edition, especially if they're going to keep pumping out new models for it. I figure that's upcoming anyway, and will be staggered a year with The Other Side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 6:16 AM, Emberlost said:

Doubt they'd do the sending in for new cards again, given that you can do the cards POD, download them from the website, or just use the app.

I agree.

My point was: it is factually wrong to say that 1.5 didn't have new cards.

I'm really not certain why people think decimal points make edition changes easier. But, whatevs.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 10:43 AM, Pikciwok said:

I would say greed and terrible public relations destroyed Warmachine. New Wh40k edition has rather positive reviews, not to mention better GW policy.

Warmachine is doing just fine, still putting up 60+ attendee national con events etc... and the new edition is now widely lauded as the best the game has ever been. I get that it's fashionable to hate on other games, but a lot of the rhetoric around here just aint right.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pikciwok said:

I don't -hate- Warmachine, I just heard a lot of bad things about it from friends who play it. Good to know things are getting better.

Where I play warmachine is a lot more popular as well. Losing to caster kill turn one never clicked with me but these days warmahordes has moved to objective scoring and malifaux seems to be moving towards alpha strikes so maybr the tables have turned. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lalochezia said:

I agree.

My point was: it is factually wrong to say that 1.5 didn't have new cards.

I'm really not certain why people think decimal points make edition changes easier. But, whatevs.

I think it depends on what you are doing with the decimal points. I would think that Malifaux 2.5 could just be an incorporation of errata, some reorganization of the book, and some minor rules changes (such as the rules for elevation and vantage point). There wouldn't be a large scale changing of model stats. It would be on par with an errata release in the number of models with changed stat cards and those would be the ones that had abilities that directly interacted with any rules that were changed. This would require players to download the 2.5 version of the free rule book and replace the affected cards just as they would after any errata (or buy the 2.5 core). 

A jump to 3.0 would indicate a major change in some of the games systems and an overhaul of the stat cards for all of the models in the game. This is new rule books and new cards for everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference is mostly in people's head: when saying 2.5 they think of a smaller change where model stats are not invalidated (ie change in elevation rules), whereas by 3.0 people think of a rewrite/rebalancing where larger changes are on the table and all cards will change.

I think it's somewhay of a false dichotomy as stats can change within an edition (M1.5E), but can also remain valid between editions (warhammer 6th through 8th ed, unless new stats/army books where released).

Though the x.5 is a bit of a misnomer there is a distinction between calling for a big reset and a small adjustment. Personally I think the first would be overkill, tha latter a welcome change...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Terry Bailey Sr said:

We live in a digital age. When will we ever go to living rulebooks instead of constant new editions? Heck even Advanced Squad Leader was using a binder and updated pages for rules changes years ago.

It still needs version numbering unless you must have the rule book to hand to play. I can't remember the last time I referred to a rule book during a game. I might be a luddite, but I find living rulebooks are much harder to keep up to date with as a player. (but I can see would be easier to bring in new players).  I certainly don't pull out my rulebook and check the exact steps for resolving a duel every single time I make a duel. 

Honestly, if a game only has an electronic rule book, I just don't bother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Adran said:

It still needs version numbering unless you must have the rule book to hand to play. I can't remember the last time I referred to a rule book during a game. I might be a luddite, but I find living rulebooks are much harder to keep up to date with as a player. (but I can see would be easier to bring in new players).  I certainly don't pull out my rulebook and check the exact steps for resolving a duel every single time I make a duel. 

Honestly, if a game only has an electronic rule book, I just don't bother. 

Especially if the ChangeLog isn't VERY exacting. A minor change to a single word or phrase, or the movement of punctuation can dramatically change how it's interpreted. And if any of those are slipped in unnoticed, it can make for a very bad play experience. With an FAQ/Errata concept, you know what parts have been rewritten, because well... anything not in the FAQ hasn't been changed.

Though I'll admit, I do wish errata'd cards had an identifier on them to indicate which version they are. Reading an opponent's Lucius, knowing there was a change, but not knowing if the card you're reading is the updated version, and then having to check, can be more than a little frustrating. Just a little "1/17" (I think that's when it happened?) next to the name on the back of the card, would make things a lot easier, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 7:30 AM, Morgan Vening said:

Though I'll admit, I do wish errata'd cards had an identifier on them to indicate which version they are. Reading an opponent's Lucius, knowing there was a change, but not knowing if the card you're reading is the updated version, and then having to check, can be more than a little frustrating. Just a little "1/17" (I think that's when it happened?) next to the name on the back of the card, would make things a lot easier, I think.

...  there is a sign.  On the back of the card should be the words "Errata: January 2017" in big bold letters right under the card name along the side.

Link here because the image is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 4:02 AM, Clement said:

...  there is a sign.  On the back of the card should be the words "Errata: January 2017" in big bold letters right under the card name along the side.

Link here because the image is huge.

Oh. Well, I feel dumb. Though I could have sworn some of them didn't, but it appears that was stuff that got corrected real quick (Diestro, Frank's "Rare 1" correction, etc).

I only just ordered the errata cards (and the 2017, because I didn't have a Lucius crew, and GG18, 17 and 16, and anything else I felt I needed), because while WGV is a great resource, it's hella expensive shipping for a handful of cards to Aus.

But I still feel dumb. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information