Third Edition is Coming!!

[Gnomezilla]

1 hour ago, edopersichetti said:

I think models being fragile is an interesting part of the game: they can do amazing things (think for example Mr Tannen!) but you have to protect them and be careful not to expose them. Now if killing is toned down, it'll become safer to employ these models, and that in turn means their skills will be toned down too...and the whole thing becomes less interesting.

Plus, I don't know, I never minded my Bayou Gremlins and the like being killed easily, it almost...makes sense...

In the game just before wave five, my supposedly tanky stompybots were also being killed just as easily because armor ignoring/non reducible/defense trigger bypassing had become just so common...and that didn’t make sense. It should say something that an entire upgrade was released saying ‘whoops, let’s give you back that resilience we assumed your crew always had’, the killing got toned way down just as you fear—and we still barely see that master. (But that’s a step up from never seeing him.) Viks can still output heinous damage on multiple targets if I cluster my stompybots, but they can no longer one-shot-kill multiple 10ss+ models per activation to the point the game is lost after one such activation. It’s a lot closer to a balanced game.

[Clement]

49 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

From the announcement email:

So... probably? I didn't see a direct confirmation of doing it through the app, but it seems logical.

They might take the PP route.  All the cards are available online for free in pdf form, but cards in the app still costs money.

[Squirrelich]

1 minute ago, Clement said:

They might take the PP route.  All the cards are available online for free in pdf form, but cards in the app still costs money.

fair and possible

[mbowsher76]

I am sure with NDAs no one can confirm this but Wyrd staff, but I was curious if the play test applications have begun

to be processed?

[Mason]

1 hour ago, mbowsher76 said:

I am sure with NDAs no one can confirm this but Wyrd staff, but I was curious if the play test applications have begun

to be processed?

The playtest isn't beginning until after next week. 

[mbowsher76]

1 hour ago, Mason said:

The playtest isn't beginning until after next week. 

Mason not to continue to push the issue, but do you mean the actual playtest begins or the selection process begins after next week? I am just curious as to when I should start hoping to see something from y'all in my inbox!

[Mason]

5 minutes ago, mbowsher76 said:

Mason not to continue to push the issue, but do you mean the actual playtest begins or the selection process begins after next week? I am just curious as to when I should start hoping to see something from y'all in my inbox!

The actual beta playtest starts after next week.

[SunTsu]

16 hours ago, Tors said:

It influences hiring second masters.

Sure. But in that case it wouldn't be a very poor and underused "new concept" in the game, giving a value to masters and then use it just less than half times? Really, why calculate a cost for a piece, and then let it be hired for free without a very good reason? Finally, if a couple master+totem would cost (let's say) 25ss, saying "you can get M+T free and then spend 50ss" or "you can spend 75ss your crew, including M+T" it's essentially the same. With the big difference that in the first case you dropped a tool for balance the game, while in the second you have much more design space to work on.

 

16 hours ago, Tors said:

If you read my following posts you would see i never argued that way. I think it is fair, after all 3 Models get you 3 times the AP. And if i need a big beefy model,  i hire it. If i need 3 small one's to sceme run, i hire them. If any of those are the best regarding points/performance ratio i happily pay the tax either way, because i need a specific task done. 

I don't understand... You basically are saying here the same that I said?

The points cost of a model, in theory, it's a representation of the weight in the game of that model. That's obviously theoric, particulary in a game like Malifaux where we have different "missions" with very different approaches and model's roles on the battlefield. But, in a theoric vacuum, and if priced correctly, I should expect that 4x3ss models would have the same impact in the game than 2x6ss or a single 12ss model. I think we can safely agree on this, isn't it?

So now, if you gives me a fee of +4ss on those 4x3ss models, and just +1ss on the single 12ss one, aren't you shifting that "points/performance ratio" you mentioned before, in favor of the bigger model??? Finally you're getting onto the table an equivalent "value" of models, but in a case you're spending much more than the other...

 

17 hours ago, Tors said:

Agree to disagree. 

Mmmm... exactly on what you disagree with me? You quoted a part where I argued that if additional masters would get just a little +1ss fee, it would result in a super convenient hire and could led to a game where 2-3-4 masters are required in order to be competitive, and that would be very unfun and would promote very similar lists for a given faction.

So, you disagree with the fact that the +1ss tax would be trivial for a master? Or on that it would be a very convenient hire? You disagree with the idea that it would be better avoid a masterfaux situation since it would be unfun? I didn't undestand...

 

Essentially, I made a reasoning. I moved from the Wyrd's idea to let play more masters in the same crew, so giving them a formal cost in ss. I liked this base idea and I find it opens up new design spaces.

Considering this, I thought that giving the leader for free wouldn't be coherent with that base idea, since it would close a bit that space that opened before. Overmore it would result in a unuseful complication (this is the cost, but than you get it for free, but only if this is the first master you hire...) for a very little gain if any, that is against the idea about streamlining the game.

I proposed an alternative: first recalculate the models' costs going on an upper scale (+50%?), so that the devs can better fine tuning the cost of single models and better modulate the out-of-theme fee. Also, I suggested that this tax shouldn't be a flat+1ss, but it should be smaller on cheper models, higher on more expensive ones. Making this fee a written number on each model card would probably opens up some interesting design space. But it would work even if that tax would be linked to the general cost of models, with a simple formula (examle: each full 5ss of cost, add+1ss).

[Parker Barrows]

11 hours ago, mrninja13 said:

Have there been any info about cover and concealment being stackable, or is it just speculation at this point? 

I would have thought that the main difference would be "obscures you and stops bullets" vs "obscures you and doesn't stop bullets", as I can't imagine something that is cover but doesn't conceal, unless we're talking about stuff like 50% or more of the model being obscured or things like that, but they're not exactly the smoothest of rules. Or am I missing something?

Got to say, the more I hear the more optimistic I'm getting towards the new edition. A few things are starting to make more sense with extra bits of info we're getting,  so I am relatively confident all the iffy issues will end up make sense too. I am even warming up to the multiple masters idea. 

Just speculation. My natural instinct is it should be something like this:

Only Concealment = Someone hiding in water that makes them difficult to see, but they are exposed when the bullets start flying.

Only Cover = A wall which makes them harder to hit, but the shooter knows exactly where they are.

Cover and Concealment = A forest where it's hard to tell where the enemy is and has plenty of trees to hide behind it.

In short, cover stops bullets. Concealment messes with the shooter's sight (this is why I think/hope it will be area of effect like severe terrain).

I don't like the idea all cover giving concealment for two reasons.

1. You could make the same argument that cover removes line of sight against the model. The shooting model can't see them. To me it makes the same amount of sense (and honestly, from a non-game mechanic perspective, I totally see it).

2. The biggest reason I really don't like this idea is because they are two different names. Hard and Soft Cover are mechanically link, and it makes sense within the game since they're both called "cover." Two different names to me suggests two different mechanics which can but don't have to overlap. If they do, I'll be hoping they change the name to link them.  It'll be much easier to teach a newbie that "Cover gives and Hard Cover gives to the attacker and +2 DF to the Defender" than "Concealment gives  and Cover gives +2 DF to the Defender and remember that Cover also gives Concealment." It seems less intuitive which seems the opposite of what ME3 is trying to be.

It's not huge deal to me. But if they are mechanically linked, I would like to see the naming suggest it. It just makes sense to me.

[MuMantai]

7 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Essentially, I made a reasoning. I moved from the Wyrd's idea to let play more masters in the same crew, so giving them a formal cost in ss. I liked this base idea and I find it opens up new design spaces.

Considering this, I thought that giving the leader for free wouldn't be coherent with that base idea, since it would close a bit that space that opened before. Overmore it would result in a unuseful complication (this is the cost, but than you get it for free, but only if this is the first master you hire...) for a very little gain if any, that is against the idea about streamlining the game.

I proposed an alternative: first recalculate the models' costs going on an upper scale (+50%?), so that the devs can better fine tuning the cost of single models and better modulate the out-of-theme fee. Also, I suggested that this tax shouldn't be a flat+1ss, but it should be smaller on cheper models, higher on more expensive ones. Making this fee a written number on each model card would probably opens up some interesting design space. But it would work even if that tax would be linked to the general cost of models, with a simple formula (examle: each full 5ss of cost, add+1ss).

I agree with you that it would open design space. If masters did have different costs, then it would make sense to hire them for their costs instead of getting them for free, as it is now.

I have three qualms with that:

- The final goal should be that all masters are equal in power. That is a hard to achieve goal for sure, but if done right, there should be no difference between buying the matser and getting it for free.

- The master, at least in fluff, should be the one putting together the crew. Paying for him/her makes no sense in that regard, so if we start paying costs for t5he first master, we have a slight disconnect between lore and game.

- If models start to cost more, the whole system gets harder to process. I know of a lot of people, that even now like to use the app to calculate their crews costs, but I like that (at least) I am able to calculate it in my head. To 50, this is mostly no problem, to 100, this would be a lot harder. I played Legion, which goes up to 800, and I really don't like that. Also, +1 for out of faction is not fair, as it is a different percentage in regards to the models cost, but it is easy. And I think that is important as well.

 

As to the whole merc tax discussion: I don't think it is fair to compare three models of 4 SS each to one of 12 SS. Yes, with the system in place right now, it would be benefical to hire the one over the three in respect to the tax, but what is not taken into account here is that a 12 SS model has usually a completely different role than a 4 SS model. Will this lead to more expensive models being hired out of theme than cheap ones? Maybe, but I think, as a whole, out of theme models will be hired because either they fill a role that is hard to fill in theme, or they are just that good. In both cases, the cost is irrelevant, and they are worth the one SS more than they would cost otherwise.

 

One thing I am worried about is the fact that masters seem to be 14 SS models that are balanced including their totems. So, for 14 SS you get the master plus their totem, which is either a fantastic deal, or masters are not as powerful as they should be. I hope this gets sorted out in the playtest.

[Tors]

7 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Sure. But in that case it wouldn't be a very poor and underused "new concept" in the game, giving a value to masters and then use it just less than half times? Really, why calculate a cost for a piece, and then let it be hired for free without a very good reason? Finally, if a couple master+totem would cost (let's say) 25ss, saying "you can get M+T free and then spend 50ss" or "you can spend 75ss your crew, including M+T" it's essentially the same. With the big difference that in the first case you dropped a tool for balance the game, while in the second you have much more design space to work on.

Dual costs would be as underused as this. A rule isn't good or bad measured by the instances it's used. Given the goal of making Masters (roughly) even i would theorize, that even if you would have to pay for them, 1-3 points difference would make just as much difference as a balancing tool as the former Cache values - next to non. Again the Model with the best skill set for a given task (scemes) would be chosen.

In addition for most people free-Master is a working and trusted concept while hiring. That is not essential but bears a recognition value. 

7 hours ago, SunTsu said:

 

I don't understand... You basically are saying here the same that I said?

The points cost of a model, in theory, it's a representation of the weight in the game of that model. That's obviously theoric, particulary in a game like Malifaux where we have different "missions" with very different approaches and model's roles on the battlefield. But, in a theoric vacuum, and if priced correctly, I should expect that 4x3ss models would have the same impact in the game than 2x6ss or a single 12ss model. I think we can safely agree on this, isn't it?

No Theoretic Vacuums aren't used ingame and aren't usefull for discussion either because of that. Especially in Malifaux were scemes and strategies are everything one should expect, that sometimes 4x3ss Models outperform one single 12ss model and visa versa. Thats one of the main reasons i prefer the simplicity of a general tax over the hussle of implementing different hiring values. 

7 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Mmmm... exactly on what you disagree with me? You quoted a part where I argued that if additional masters would get just a little +1ss fee, it would result in a super convenient hire and could led to a game where 2-3-4 masters are required in order to be competitive,

On this assumption.  

[Adran]

8 hours ago, SunTsu said:

 

I proposed an alternative: first recalculate the models' costs going on an upper scale (+50%?), so that the devs can better fine tuning the cost of single models and better modulate the out-of-theme fee. Also, I suggested that this tax shouldn't be a flat+1ss, but it should be smaller on cheper models, higher on more expensive ones. Making this fee a written number on each model card would probably opens up some interesting design space. But it would work even if that tax would be linked to the general cost of models, with a simple formula (examle: each full 5ss of cost, add+1ss).

The problem with this is even more of your argument against a flat cost. If a 5 as model cost +1 and a 6 cost +2 then no one would hire the 6 stone for 8 when they could hire the 5 stone for 6. 

It's possible that the granular cost could be better, but I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you claim. 

[11th Thunder]

Mason. I am terribly sorry to bother you with more questions about the beta, but I have one last one.

I have been in between houses and thus unable to print the NDA. I can rectify that this weekend, but am concerned it might be a bit late.

Am I correct in my assessment that I am too late? If I am too late, is another wave of invites planned for a future date?

[Parker Barrows]

I would just apply. I can't speak for Wyrd, but I'd be surprised if they've looked at it yet. It popped out right before GenCon, then GenCon, and then GenCon orders. I'd just apply and see what happens. It's not like you'll be penalized. Just waste a little time and computer ink (or if you're like me, a buck or two at Kinko's).

[edopersichetti]

For the record, Mason just confirmed that summoning a model means the opponent gets a Pass Token right away

I remember discussing with some people about out-activation still going to be possible with summoning (@Clement @Razhem @Fetid Strumpet @retnab @mrninja13 and others) - this unfortunately means that not even that is going to be true. It looks like the devs are adamant that there can't be any sort of out-activation whatsoever...

At this point my first beta game will have to be Som'er or Ulix or some other summoner - I need to figure out if this Pass Token thing actually makes sense, and how the game changes. I'm very worried.

[Fetid Strumpet]

If they do the pass mechanic well no problem, but I’m very skeptical. I do not want to play a game that is all about tiny elite crews. 

[SunTsu]

I cannot understand all that concerns about pass tokens...

Finally, having more bodies on the grounds means usually having more wounds and more actions (let's enter in the new wording mindset from now... ) than the opponent. Sure more models at the same cost means those ones will be more fragile and less performant than a single very expensive one, obviously. But one of the main problem in M2e was exactly how powerful out-activation (OA) was. Entire branches of ruleset and design space were closed to let the game balance OA in some way. All the GG2018 revolved around limiting OA as away to be OP. And again a relevant part of the summoning problem was caused by the OA. This forced the game in a state where, or to be competitive you absolutely needed to build a crew around summoning/OA, or the devs were forced to create patches that hinder in a way or another the game design. Examples? Stuffed piglets were nerfed so that they became unuseful at their actual cost, and the only reason was OA. Their "extinction" meant also the pigapult was pushed out of the game. OA forbid to create very cheap models, since the ony existence to get a single activation would make those models OP, while at a slightly higher cost they suddenly become unplayable...

What's this pass mechanic, from what we know/guess at the moment? If the opponent outnumber you by 5 models, you get 5 pass tokens. It's easy to guess you can spend one token to pass your turn to activate a model. The opponent still have some activations in a row, but at last you decide when he will get those activations. So this will avoid that a player can use all his insignificant activations at the beginning of the turn in order of score or do whetever he want in the end of the tun, well knowing there will be no retaliation neither any reply from the other player: this, in a game that is build around the IGYG it's a tombstone...

We don't know the details of this mechanic. For example if killing a models that didn't activate yet force the owner to discard a pass token. But I don't see any problem of using 5 PT in a row, if the opponent got 5 activations more than you...

Overmore, it opens interesting design spaces that the devs had highlighted in M3e presentation: some models or entire crews will be able to trade some activation control for some kind of power, such as Perdita's crew that can discard PT to gain focus. And also, obviously many cheap models will be very susceptible to area damage while relatively resistant to single-target high-damage attacks, and the opposite.

Sure, this means a completely rework of costs of many models. I expect that, since the OA will be not a factor anymore, bigger models would get a cost increase, while some small ones will see their cost decrease accordingly since the inherent advantage to get +1 activation will be no more so important now (malifaux rats at 1ss? stuffed piglet again back to 2ss??? ). But a major part of the beta testing I guess will revolve around this work of balancing things.

Finally, we have a lot of time to do this work and to be sure that the ruleset works and are well balanced. @Mason said the priority is on balance and fun. And this sounds as an insurance, coupled with the fact Wyrd didn't announced any release date yet. This means for me that the mind is open and the beta will be not a simple formal exercise, but a real testing for which there isn't a written conclusion in a defined time at the moment.

So, let's try to be positive and constructive, wouldn't you???

Just my small thoughts here.... 🤗

[Donatien]

Pleeeaaaase, could we have all data on the SAME side of charcter cards. It will be really usefull and saving time. 

Merci

Donatien Lacroix

[Chargy]

Let's also not forget, that even with pass tokens, the smaller crews will have fewer actions to react or counteract a crew with more models. This, while being able to give smaller crews the ability to time their movements a bit better, does not give them resources to effectively counteract the volume of options a crew of more, smaller cost models may have.

[WWHSD]

5 minutes ago, Donatien said:

Pleeeaaaase, could we have all data on the SAME side of charcter cards. It will be really usefull and saving time. 

Merci

Donatien Lacroix

That’s not going to happen unless the cards get even bigger. Most of the cards that were at GenCon have their backsides pretty much full of text.

[edopersichetti]

4 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I cannot understand all that concerns about pass tokens...

Finally, having more bodies on the grounds means usually having more wounds and more actions (let's enter in the new wording mindset from now... ) than the opponent. Sure more models at the same cost means those ones will be more fragile and less performant than a single very expensive one, obviously. But one of the main problem in M2e was exactly how powerful out-activation (OA) was. Entire branches of ruleset and design space were closed to let the game balance OA in some way. All the GG2018 revolved around limiting OA as away to be OP. And again a relevant part of the summoning problem was caused by the OA. This forced the game in a state where, or to be competitive you absolutely needed to build a crew around summoning/OA, or the devs were forced to create patches that hinder in a way or another the game design. Examples? Stuffed piglets were nerfed so that they became unuseful at their actual cost, and the only reason was OA. Their "extinction" meant also the pigapult was pushed out of the game. OA forbid to create very cheap models, since the ony existence to get a single activation would make those models OP, while at a slightly higher cost they suddenly become unplayable...

What's this pass mechanic, from what we know/guess at the moment? If the opponent outnumber you by 5 models, you get 5 pass tokens. It's easy to guess you can spend one token to pass your turn to activate a model. The opponent still have some activations in a row, but at last you decide when he will get those activations. So this will avoid that a player can use all his insignificant activations at the beginning of the turn in order of score or do whetever he want in the end of the tun, well knowing there will be no retaliation neither any reply from the other player: this, in a game that is build around the IGYG it's a tombstone...

We don't know the details of this mechanic. For example if killing a models that didn't activate yet force the owner to discard a pass token. But I don't see any problem of using 5 PT in a row, if the opponent got 5 activations more than you...

Overmore, it opens interesting design spaces that the devs had highlighted in M3e presentation: some models or entire crews will be able to trade some activation control for some kind of power, such as Perdita's crew that can discard PT to gain focus. And also, obviously many cheap models will be very susceptible to area damage while relatively resistant to single-target high-damage attacks, and the opposite.

Sure, this means a completely rework of costs of many models. I expect that, since the OA will be not a factor anymore, bigger models would get a cost increase, while some small ones will see their cost decrease accordingly since the inherent advantage to get +1 activation will be no more so important now (malifaux rats at 1ss? stuffed piglet again back to 2ss??? ). But a major part of the beta testing I guess will revolve around this work of balancing things.

Finally, we have a lot of time to do this work and to be sure that the ruleset works and are well balanced. @Mason said the priority is on balance and fun. And this sounds as an insurance, coupled with the fact Wyrd didn't announced any release date yet. This means for me that the mind is open and the beta will be not a simple formal exercise, but a real testing for which there isn't a written conclusion in a defined time at the moment.

So, let's try to be positive and constructive, wouldn't you???

Just my small thoughts here.... 🤗

I guess what people are afraid of is that if there is no value in cheap models because they provide that extra activation, a small-count elite crew could even the odds pretty quickly and then dominate the game. Suppose I have 5 models worth 10 stones each, and you have 10 models worth 5 stones each. My 5 models each kill a cheap model on their turn, while you kill none (especially with damage being toned down and all). So on Turn 2/3 we both have 5 models, but mine are bigger, better and way out of reach of yours. Why would I ever go for quantity if it gives me little advantage? Sure, you can say more models = more actions and you can drop more scheme markers and all - but again, once the big guys dispose of the opponent's extra ones, the game will be pretty much done and dusted there.
Already in M2E against heavy damage/elite crews the only remedy is to stay hidden and delay the important activations, but if this is not possible because pass tokens, one is forced to either expose some models or waste a turn. I'm thinking for example a typical Perdita or Sonnia crew...they can easily murder one (or more) models a turn. The only way to stay safe is to feed them fodder, or delay your important activations staying hidden until she's activated...you see the (potential) problem? If they get multiple pass tokens, there's no way to stay safe...

Again, I'm just voicing what the people are afraid of. I agree that out-activation was starting to become a problem - but it was so only because there were more and more cheap models available. I'm curious to read the rules too and try it out, because as it is there are justified worries, and it looks like certain masters like summoners and masters that made numbers their whole schtick (like Som'er and Hamelin) will be hit - while small elite (and in particular shooty, like Perdita and the like) crews will have an advantage.

[mrninja13]

Well, but in your example that 5 model crew that can kill one model a turn in a 10 model crew will need 10 turns to table the opponent. And, jokes apart, if they focus on just killing they won't do much scoring.

In the end I will all depend on how it gets balanced. Having played mostly against summoners i for one welcome the idea of the pass tokens

[Adran]

2 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

I guess what people are afraid of is that if there is no value in cheap models because they provide that extra activation, a small-count elite crew could even the odds pretty quickly and then dominate the game. Suppose I have 5 models worth 10 stones each, and you have 10 models worth 5 stones each. My 5 models each kill a cheap model on their turn, while you kill none (especially with damage being toned down and all). So on Turn 2/3 we both have 5 models, but mine are bigger, better and way out of reach of yours. Why would I ever go for quantity if it gives me little advantage? Sure, you can say more models = more actions and you can drop more scheme markers and all - but again, once the big guys dispose of the opponent's extra ones, the game will be pretty much done and dusted there.
 

If you look at M2e 10 5 stone models will probably do about the same damage as 5 10 stone models, and have the same total amount of wounds. So if you are killing 5 5 stone models you ought to kill at least 2 10 stone models in return. So the quantity ought to out number for a few turns. 

This is probably even more true in a lower damage environment especially when the advantage of out activation has been reduced. 

 

And in response to the having to just weather a powerful activation, unless both players do nothing except for that last activation, both crews will be risking models or not threatening unless they win initiative

[Parker Barrows]

6 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I cannot understand all that concerns about pass tokens...

Finally, having more bodies on the grounds means usually having more wounds and more actions (let's enter in the new wording mindset from now... ) than the opponent. Sure more models at the same cost means those ones will be more fragile and less performant than a single very expensive one, obviously. But one of the main problem in M2e was exactly how powerful out-activation (OA) was. Entire branches of ruleset and design space were closed to let the game balance OA in some way. All the GG2018 revolved around limiting OA as away to be OP. And again a relevant part of the summoning problem was caused by the OA. This forced the game in a state where, or to be competitive you absolutely needed to build a crew around summoning/OA, or the devs were forced to create patches that hinder in a way or another the game design. Examples? Stuffed piglets were nerfed so that they became unuseful at their actual cost, and the only reason was OA. Their "extinction" meant also the pigapult was pushed out of the game. OA forbid to create very cheap models, since the ony existence to get a single activation would make those models OP, while at a slightly higher cost they suddenly become unplayable...

What's this pass mechanic, from what we know/guess at the moment? If the opponent outnumber you by 5 models, you get 5 pass tokens. It's easy to guess you can spend one token to pass your turn to activate a model. The opponent still have some activations in a row, but at last you decide when he will get those activations. So this will avoid that a player can use all his insignificant activations at the beginning of the turn in order of score or do whetever he want in the end of the tun, well knowing there will be no retaliation neither any reply from the other player: this, in a game that is build around the IGYG it's a tombstone...

We don't know the details of this mechanic. For example if killing a models that didn't activate yet force the owner to discard a pass token. But I don't see any problem of using 5 PT in a row, if the opponent got 5 activations more than you...

Overmore, it opens interesting design spaces that the devs had highlighted in M3e presentation: some models or entire crews will be able to trade some activation control for some kind of power, such as Perdita's crew that can discard PT to gain focus. And also, obviously many cheap models will be very susceptible to area damage while relatively resistant to single-target high-damage attacks, and the opposite.

Sure, this means a completely rework of costs of many models. I expect that, since the OA will be not a factor anymore, bigger models would get a cost increase, while some small ones will see their cost decrease accordingly since the inherent advantage to get +1 activation will be no more so important now (malifaux rats at 1ss? stuffed piglet again back to 2ss??? ). But a major part of the beta testing I guess will revolve around this work of balancing things.

Finally, we have a lot of time to do this work and to be sure that the ruleset works and are well balanced. @Mason said the priority is on balance and fun. And this sounds as an insurance, coupled with the fact Wyrd didn't announced any release date yet. This means for me that the mind is open and the beta will be not a simple formal exercise, but a real testing for which there isn't a written conclusion in a defined time at the moment.

So, let's try to be positive and constructive, wouldn't you???

Just my small thoughts here.... 🤗

I think the concern is reverse Alpha Strike. You with the bigger Crew use all your Activations getting to the enemy. Then, the enemy can Activate their entire (or at least most of their) crew and act without their opponent interfering. It gives the person with the pass tokens more control over the tempo over the game which basically the opposite of the current situation where the player that has more activations controls the tempo.

However, if done right, I think there can be a balance so that both big and small Crews are viable. We'll have to wait and see if ME3 gets it right.

[Fetid Strumpet]

No Miniatures game I’ve played has ever gotten pass mechanics right. No Miniatures game, conceptional or practical, I’ve tested has ever gotten pass mechanics right. I’m not saying Wyrd is making a mistake, or that they will flub these, or that it’s a bad idea to try, but just be optomistic is not a realistic or practical piece of advise. 

Im totally willing to see them, and perhaps there is some cost associated that mitigates it. But I’d rather we have what we have now, with possibly some tweaks on the lower end of cost so no model is practically costed for viable hire activation spam, than move to a system that says hiring low cost models is basically throwing points away.