Third Edition is Coming!!

[LunarSol]

29 minutes ago, Brandu said:

I agree. Not happy with this change. If they want the game to be "faster" reducing damage output on the Red Joker doesn't help.It is in line with how it has been going though.

1st edition: RJ= Severe + another Damage Flip, so Severe + Severe did happen. 2E: RJ = Severe + Weak Damage.  M3: RJ = Severe +1 whoopee 😞 (Would like to see Severe +Weak at least)

Cannot quite understand why people complaining that the BJ is still a 0 and 0 damage... Huh? I have a simple answer for that one: Bad Things Happen. 

 

One thing to consider is that the Red Joker often made it really hard to allow things to give  on damage.  M2E generally worked on the idea that cheating damage was always fairly rare, in no small part because if it wasn't, holding the RJ to spike something dead would have been a no brainer.  Bounding that card eases up that burden significantly and makes having a high min damage less universally important.

[yool1981]

2 hours ago, Clement said:

Is it though?  Without the placement, a crew would ball up as hard as it can and march to wherever the markers will be dropping.  With the spread, it's a hard road for that style of crew.  This will encourage you to run forward and present a reasonable presence across the whole center line.  Then rush to an idol and punt it into the enemy half of the table, as deep as you dare.  It's got an interesting tension between lots of small models so you can better cover the area and a few big models who can afford the big 3 damage hits.  I think the "convert damage to vp" is an interesting angle to explore.

The placement is random which adds another layer of luck that I don’t like. 

[LunarSol]

I'm cool with a bit of randomness in my rulebook scenarios.  There's so much general chaos post release of a new edition figuring what's good it takes a good 6 months to settle into a place where scenario design is really crucial and by then GG19/20 will make the rulebook scenarios irrelevant anyway.  In some ways, having the rulebook stuff be a little random and silly means that they always have a purpose rather than being immediately outdated by the next GG.

[Blastaar]

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.

[LunarSol]

The way the current rules work there's little difference.  Everything that's currently written out would still need to be under the AP system.  Given how few (2) AP actions existed in M2E, its probably cleaner to just make that a unique property of the ability if that's the way you want to go about it.  There's also fewer ways that it can interact poorly with Fast.

[Adran]

12 minutes ago, yool1981 said:

The placement is random which adds another layer of luck that I don’t like. 

Well yes and no. You know the 5 spots it could appear, and need to have a plan for each of them. Sure you can risk everything on going for 1 spot, and if you get very lucky it might be the reason you win, but you form 1 large group, your opponent can do the same at the same place if they want, so even if you are lucky your opponent can play to stop you. 

 

[Blastaar]

5 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

The way the current rules work there's little difference.  Everything that's currently written out would still need to be under the AP system.  Given how few (2) AP actions existed in M2E, its probably cleaner to just make that a unique property of the ability if that's the way you want to go about it.  

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."

[LunarSol]

4 minutes ago, Blastaar said:

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."

That's assuming they want to do 2 AP actions that way (which requires different wording anyway since that lets you take it as your second action).  For example, one rule might achieve a similar effect by saying it can't be made as part of a charge action.  Another might require you haven't moved or maybe you need to spend a Focus condition to use it.  Ultimately, I just don't think AP as it worked before was used for much beyond (1) actions for it to really be a significant change either way.  As a bonus, I think that little lightning bolt is probably the new way of showing (0) actions, which will be a lot easier to explain the limitations of, particularly on models with more than one.

[Adran]

We used to have an( all )action in first edition, so it's not the first time we've lost action types. I can only think of 4 (3) actions in total. There are more (2) actions, but not that many. We have seen how they changed charge to not be a (2) action. 

[emiba]

3 hours ago, Brandu said:

I agree. Not happy with this change. If they want the game to be "faster" reducing damage output on the Red Joker doesn't help.It is in line with how it has been going though.

1st edition: RJ= Severe + another Damage Flip, so Severe + Severe did happen. 2E: RJ = Severe + Weak Damage.  M3: RJ = Severe +1 whoopee 😞 (Would like to see Severe +Weak at least)

Having slept on it, I actually think that a straight +2 would be good. It makes it so min damage 1 get a slight boost, min damage 2 is unchanged and min damage 3+ (mainly beaters) gets tones down a little. In current edition it means RJ is 10 instead of 12 for Seamus and 8 instead of 10 for Nekima. Still really hard hit but a little less devastating.

I think the problem is that models that are beaters benefit more from the RJ than others.

[Malovane]

Without seeing the stats off all the M3E models, its a bit hard to evaluate the overall impact of the RJ change.  Depending on the average health values and the damage ranges of models in M3E, the RJ change might be fine.  In a vacuum, severe+1 is underwhelming, but if the typical severe damage has gone up and/or average health has been reduced, the net result would be something of a wash.  Changing to +1 over +weak serves to normalize the red joker's impact across models.  It also removes that extreme swing the RJ had on models with high weak damage, which potentially opens up the design space a bit.

[Atterdag]

Anyone knows, if campaign rules will be included in release (Shifting Loyalties like)?

[Ludvig]

42 minutes ago, Atterdag said:

Anyone knows, if campaign rules will be included in release (Shifting Loyalties like)?

Don't know but highly doubt it. They have a shitload of stuff to playtest and the campaign playtest was very time consuming and ultimately ended up wildly unbalanced. Probably a later supplement.

[Pyrflamme]

Aside from another several masters without Avatars, seems like it wouldn't be any more unbalanced to use the 2e campaign rules in 3e than it was to use them in 2e. The campaign system usually gets pretty whacky anyways.

As for the RJ, it'll be a change but I don't think it'll be too huge. The models it mattered on with "high" damage tracks - 3/4/6, 3/4/5, even 2/4/6, it only ends up being like ~2 damage less than 2e most times. Still enough to kill weaker minions and enforcers and severely damage tougher models, but gives them design space to put in higher minimum damage without worrying about RJ. 4/5/6 becomes 7 damage instead of 10, that 7 damage is worrisome for the opponent but doesn't have the extreme one-shot capabilities of 10.

[Squirrelich]

On 7/27/2018 at 7:45 AM, Mason said:

Mercenaries in the M2E sense of the word are going away. They were very much a "feast or famine" issue in M2E, where they were either an option that was never considered (Hog Whisperer, Freikorpsmann, Torakage) or were in every list due to their strength (Burn, McTavish, Freikorps Trapper).

Ok this got me thinking. So we don't like the merc option cause at +1 SS they were in waaaaaaay too many lists that had nothing to do with their theme, or no one was using that option at all.

Now, we have basically the same mechanic by Keyword in the Faction, if out of theme pay +1 SS to bring them in. So... ... ... how is that going to be different this time around? Is it ok if Joss (or whatever happens to be strong at the time) shows up with Raspy, Marcus, Colette, Sandeep, Hoffman, Mei and Ironsides all the time but something Howard never does? It just feels like we're going to get in the same spot by using the same mechanic, which is apparently a bad thing to according to the Head Dev.

[DeleteAccount]

8 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

Ok this got me thinking. So we don't like the merc option cause at +1 SS they were in waaaaaaay too many lists that had nothing to do with their theme, or no one was using that option at all.

Now, we have basically the same mechanic by Keyword in the Faction, if out of theme pay +1 SS to bring them in. So... ... ... how is that going to be different this time around? Is it ok if Joss (or whatever happens to be strong at the time) shows up with Raspy, Marcus, Colette, Sandeep, Hoffman, Mei and Ironsides all the time but something Howard never does? It just feels like we're going to get in the same spot by using the same mechanic, which is apparently a bad thing to according to the Head Dev.

Really agree with this and really hoping that there is at least a scaling system based on cost (higher base cost, higher penalty tp hire out of theme)

[Tors]

Was this 1ss penality for non-theme confirmed somewhere?

[retnab]

10 minutes ago, Tors said:

Was this 1ss penality for non-theme confirmed somewhere?

I don't think a 1ss penalty was unless I missed something, but they said there would be some minor penalty.

[DeleteAccount]

8 minutes ago, Tors said:

Was this 1ss penality for non-theme confirmed somewhere?

Only thing I've heard and may be wrong is tyat hiring another master has a 1ss penalty. If true, kind of makes sense it will apply to other non themed pieces. But if that is the only penalty, themed crews won't really last long unless their internal synergies are incredibly restricted and beneficial. Though we are already seeing that Marcus can turn any model into a chimera by giving them a mutation.

[Mason]

Hiring a model that does not share a keyword with your leader is at +1 Cost.

Cache is no longer a thing; you start with Soulstones equal to the amount you did not spend during hiring.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, 7thSquirrel said:

Ok this got me thinking. So we don't like the merc option cause at +1 SS they were in waaaaaaay too many lists that had nothing to do with their theme, or no one was using that option at all.

Now, we have basically the same mechanic by Keyword in the Faction, if out of theme pay +1 SS to bring them in. So... ... ... how is that going to be different this time around?

 

 It just feels like we're going to get in the same spot by using the same mechanic, which is apparently a bad thing to according to the Head Dev.

Well I would guess one big difference is you might see trappers in every outcast list, but you don't see them in every neverborn list or guild list ( And so forth). 

[Fetid Strumpet]

39 minutes ago, Mason said:

Hiring a model that does not share a keyword with your leader is at +1 Cost.

Cache is no longer a thing; you start with Soulstones equal to the amount you did not spend during hiring.

Is there a limit? 

Side question, are totems being looked at across the board to be more integral to their master in the way the printing press was? In that vein there are rumors of totems being free, is that an outgrowth of that goal?

[WWHSD]

22 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Is there a limit? 

Side question, are totems being looked at across the board to be more integral to their master in the way the printing press was? In that vein there are rumors of totems being free, is that an outgrowth of that goal?

It’s not a rumor. Mason confirmed it on A Wyrd Place. Crews get a master, totem and 50SS.

Both the Wendigo and Jackalope appear to have gotten substantial changes. Both seem like they work very well with their master but don’t seem invaluable to the crew. If each faction’s generic totem picks up the Versatile keyword and gets a similar rework, I’d imagine it could be a viable choice.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I sort of hope there are no more generic totems, and they just become versatile models. I really personally want to avoid the issue that the Malifaux child and primordial magic caused last edition

[Zebo]

3 hours ago, Mason said:

Hiring a model that does not share a keyword with your leader is at +1 Cost.

Cache is no longer a thing; you start with Soulstones equal to the amount you did not spend during hiring.

And about out of faction minis with the same keyword? I'm worrying for Anna Lovelace in my VS crew