Third Edition is Coming!!

[Parker Barrows]

2 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

1. Meh. So now the contest becomes on who has the better hand...also models like Doppelganger and Trixiebelle lose a lot of usefulness? 
2. Will have to see what Pass Tokens are used for, but just outright canceling the advantage of out-activation seems a bit hard. 
3. Agree. Actually really like this.
4. 50/50 here. Models sticking around is kinda nice, but on the other hand, some models becoming near-unkillable will be annoying. I always liked that in Malifaux, pretty much anyone could be killed if enough effort was put - and this was also because damage sometimes was pretty high. Also sometimes crazy random stuff happening with jokers, flipping three severe cards on a double negative damage flip (it happened!!) etc. 
5. A negative modifier was a 90% fail without focus, and the model in cover usually didn't even have to spend a card to make it so. This made the odd "hail mary" shot pretty useless (unless, again, one was willing to spend 2AP for 1shot). A +2df on the other hand can be very easily circumvented: in fact, sometimes the shooter is already at an advantage (say Sh6 vs Df 5 or Df 4) and so it looks like your cover will do absolutely nothing against the shot. I'm curious to playtest this, but I think the +2 Df means models in cover will be hit pretty much all the time, and the only difference the cover will make is that the attacking model may have to use a card.
So yeah I think shooty crews if anything are getting a boost...also with the reduction of engagement ranges!
6. Agree.
7. Not sure.
8. Agree.
9. I actually liked Peons - the idea of having super weak models that usually couldn't even interact but somehow still contribute to the crew's victory...

It looks like overall there's a shift towards removing randomness from the game (see the change to initiative, the less damage, the nerf to Red Joker etc.) which kinda goes against the idea of streamlining that is supposed to be the main goal...on top of losing the original Malifaux "Bad Things Happen" flavor. Mmm

1. It's a new edition. I'm sure a lot of models will have new roles, these two included.

2. I agree which is why I'm cautiously optimistic. But I have enough faith in Wyrd to believe they will get this to work.

4. I am assuming that the tanks unkillability will likewise be powered down. If not, then that could be an issue.

5. This could either way. As people have previously pointed out, there were enough ways to get focus and/or positives that it would often ignore the cover. So, while I agree that in a vacuum that a negative is a bigger penalty, with all the positives to shooting there is out there that +2 DF is harder to ignore overall.

9. I actually agree with the sentiment. I just don't think it's that big of a deal to start calling them minions. I still want Depleted to be cheap pain in the asses that can't Interact.

2 hours ago, WWHSD said:

We don't know how Cover and Concealment will work together. If a model that would have had Hard Cover in M2E benefits from both of them they get quite a bit harder to hit and damage. 

I like the idea of +2Df and ato the damage flip from cover. It makes models harder, but not impossible, to hit and makes it more likely they they'll just take minimum damage. Low Df models in cover were essentially guaranteed to be hit by a model with an attack stat of 6 that spent a focus. Cover makes it more likely that the defender wins the duel. Models with Df 6 get really hard to shoot with cover.

I dislike this. If concealment is just hard cover, then it should be said. I see concealment more like something like being in the woods or the water.

Also, I see it becoming much more of a headache when defining terrain than in ME2 since the difference between a neg in damage is smaller than adding a neg to an attack. Add to the fact that "concealment" this way is much more vague than Hard/Soft cover was, I could honestly see this happening and I don't want to go through it once.

Player 1: "This lone barrel is concealment and cover since my models can duck and hide from you."

Player 2: "Last week when you were playing a range Crew, you said it was only Cover because obviously some part would be sticking out of the barrel's path. The model would be poking it's head up to see the battle."

Player 1 with utter sincerity and genuinely confused: "I don't know what you're talking about. Stop trying to change the rules. This is how we always play it."

A week later...

Player 1 now playing a range crew: "So, this barrel is cover only."

If concealment is just going to be hard cover, I'd rather it be called hard cover. It's easier to define than "concealment" which some people will define as all cover. And some will define it depending on what kind of crew they and their opponent are playing.

[Clement]

1 minute ago, Parker Barrows said:

I dislike this. If concealment is just hard cover, then it should be said. I see concealment more like something like being in the woods or the water.

Also, I see it becoming much more of a headache when defining terrain than in ME2 since the difference between a neg in damage is smaller than adding a neg to an attack. Add to the fact that "concealment" this way is much more vague than Hard/Soft cover was, I could honestly see this happening and I don't want to go through it once.

Player 1: "This lone barrel is concealment and cover since my models can duck and hide from you."

Player 2: "Last week when you were playing a range Crew, you said it was only Cover because obviously some part would be sticking out of the barrel's path. The model would be poking it's head up to see the battle."

Player 1 with utter sincerity and genuinely confused: "I don't know what you're talking about. Stop trying to change the rules. This is how we always play it."

A week later...

Player 1 now playing a range crew: "So, this barrel is cover only."

If concealment is just going to be hard cover, I'd rather it be called hard cover. It's easier to define than "concealment" which some people will define as all cover. And some will define it depending on what kind of crew they and their opponent are playing.

This happens in M2E now.  Some players will define hard or soft cover depending on how much shooting they and their opponent was bringing to the table.

This is one of the reasons why it's key to pin down terrain definitions with your opponent *BEFORE* you hire crews.

Maybe write the terrain terms on them with sharpie? (on the bottom of course).

[Parker Barrows]

Yeah. But I find it's little easier since concealment can be argued for any cover if allowed, and it's a much bigger difference which will lead to more of it.

That's why I'm hope it will be area terrain like forests and the like. Also, can't write on the shop's terrain.

[SunTsu]

2 hours ago, edopersichetti said:

It looks like overall there's a shift towards removing randomness from the game (see the change to initiative, the less damage, the nerf to Red Joker etc.) which kinda goes against the idea of streamlining that is supposed to be the main goal...on top of losing the original Malifaux "Bad Things Happen" flavor. Mmm

I understand your concern. I like that bit of craziness in the wild card from a fluff perspective. But from a game design point-of-view Malifaux is very different from others wargames like warhammer. Malifaux it's a resource management game based, and a game where the skill of players and their in-game decisions (should) matter very very much more of the simple luck of a dice roll or a bad flip. Obviously randomness exists, and it's good so, but it should not weight so mach to let someone that played well and made a good plan to lose just for a bad flip.

In this path, I would see very well a way to soften jokers spikes. The jokers are the main randomness factor in this game. The real problem is that the impact of the jokers are not always equal: sometimes you can flip a joker in a really safe situation, like a randomization flip or a minor duel, while elsewhere you can flip a joker in a vital situation that can cost you the game (a terror test, a damage flip or on that very exactly duel for which you stored that exactly right card to play on that action).

Speaking with others local henchmen, I thought of a possible rule to let players cheat fate even when a joker would stops it. It should be something like that:

- If a joker prevent a model to cheat fate, it can cheat a weak card by spending 1ss;

- To cheat a moderate card, model need to spend +1ss;

- If the model doesn't have the soulstone manipulation ability, it needs to spend +1ss;

- In place of each ss, you can discard 2 cards.

This let a player makes a choose: cheating fate (but not a super high card) by burning a significantly number of resources, or accept to not be able to cheat fate.

This would reduce the weight of spikes in game letting a player to manage (at least partially) the missfortune, but not for free.

[WWHSD]

28 minutes ago, Parker Barrows said:

I dislike this. If concealment is just hard cover, then it should be said. I see concealment more like something like being in the woods or the water.

Also, I see it becoming much more of a headache when defining terrain than in ME2 since the difference between a neg in damage is smaller than adding a neg to an attack. Add to the fact that "concealment" this way is much more vague than Hard/Soft cover was, I could honestly see this happening and I don't want to go through it once.

Player 1: "This lone barrel is concealment and cover since my models can duck and hide from you."

Player 2: "Last week when you were playing a range Crew, you said it was only Cover because obviously some part would be sticking out of the barrel's path. The model would be poking it's head up to see the battle."

Player 1 with utter sincerity and genuinely confused: "I don't know what you're talking about. Stop trying to change the rules. This is how we always play it."

A week later...

Player 1 now playing a range crew: "So, this barrel is cover only."

If concealment is just going to be hard cover, I'd rather it be called hard cover. It's easier to define than "concealment" which some people will define as all cover. And some will define it depending on what kind of crew they and their opponent are playing.

It probably won't be as straight forward as "M2E Soft Cover = M3E Concealment" and "M2E Hard Cover = M3E Cover + Concealment" but I suspect that there will be ways to setup situations that a model can take up a defensive position that will grant them both.

My guess is that Cover and Concealment are going to be separate from any terrain attributes that may grant them. Abilities like Howard Langston's Steam Cloud ability seem like they'd be more straight forward if they just gave models in an aura Concealment instead of creating an area of Soft Cover.

[DuBlanck]

I'm very disappointed in the death of the Red Joker.

Doubly so  since they  seem to be dropping and flattening  damage tracks, so it will have even less of an impact than otherwise.

 

My main problem with the change to cover is the 'aesthetics' of the rules - having all the modifiers work on +/- flips was simple. Exceptions were relatively rare.

Now there's a whole bucketload of pluses and minuses to stat values on top of the +/- flips to track, and it just looks clumsy at first blush.

[Parker Barrows]

44 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It probably won't be as straight forward as "M2E Soft Cover = M3E Concealment" and "M2E Hard Cover = M3E Cover + Concealment" but I suspect that there will be ways to setup situations that a model can take up a defensive position that will grant them both.

My guess is that Cover and Concealment are going to be separate from any terrain attributes that may grant them. Abilities like Howard Langston's Steam Cloud ability seem like they'd be more straight forward if they just gave models in an aura Concealment instead of creating an area of Soft Cover.

I have no problem it overlapping sometimes. My forest example could easily be cover+concealment. Apparently, I just misunderstood.

[retnab]

41 minutes ago, DuBlanck said:

I'm very disappointed in the death of the Red Joker.

Doubly so  since they  seem to be dropping and flattening  damage tracks, so it will have even less of an impact than otherwise.

It's still the best card to get in a duel or for damage, hardly the death of it.  Plus, with damage tracks dropping who's to say that severe + 1 will end up being that different from severe + weak for a lot of models anyways?  If min 3 is going to be more rare and most models are min 1 or 2, then realistically we're only looking at a drop of 1 damage if any.

[Rufess]

Maybe we can separate the flipped joker and cheated joker.

While cheated a joker, they will be 1 with no suit/13 with selected suit, and min dmg-1/max dmg+1.

While flipped a joker, they will be 0 with no suit/14 with selected suit, and 0 dmg/min + max dmg.

[Fetid Strumpet]

That seems to be an inelegant and cumbersome rule for little actual benefit, in my opinion.

[DeleteAccount]

4 hours ago, DuBlanck said:

I'm very disappointed in the death of the Red Joker.

Doubly so  since they  seem to be dropping and flattening  damage tracks, so it will have even less of an impact than otherwise.

 

My main problem with the change to cover is the 'aesthetics' of the rules - having all the modifiers work on +/- flips was simple. Exceptions were relatively rare.

Now there's a whole bucketload of pluses and minuses to stat values on top of the +/- flips to track, and it just looks clumsy at first blush.

But it also opens a lot of design space. Also, if a negative flip still stops cheating, you can do a debuff now that isn't absolutely crippling. I see it quite the opposite to clumsy.

[Tors]

6 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Yes, it was 50%. Do you think it's few?

Sure. But if rules will say you get first master+totem for free, the points adjustment how much can help?

It influences hiring second masters.

6 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I never saw a player reason like you said. No one says "ok, that's just a 2% of my list". Basically, a player count what he heve to pay for what, and choose the most effective selection. Let's consider that the points of the models are effectively balanced. Let's say you have to buy 12ss in value of models, and you have two options: or 3x4ss models, or a single 12ss model. using a flat +1ss you would pay 15ss in the first case, only 13 in the second. Is it fair??? I don't think so.

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.

6 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Let's move on including masters in our reasoning. I guess that, if you hire a second master, you have to aythe flat +1ss tax. This, on a model that should cost around 14ss, it's really a little fee...

Instead, if you would pay a different fee according to the model you want to hire, the things would be much more in line for all the models (cheap or expensive), including masters that should get the highest fee to prevent a kind of Masterfaux, if you understand what I mean... 😃

 

Agree to disagree. 

[katadder]

Not a fan of lowering damage as I like playing killy crews. Is a wargame after all. Doesn't always win me the game but it's fun removing opponents models etc.

If we are all just standing around with handbags at dawn how fun will that be?

[edopersichetti]

10 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

 

Ummm, just in case you were unaware, the person your response quoted is the former lead developer of Malifaux, and the individual who was vastly responsible for the redesign into M2E. So while you might not have to agree with him, he likely does have better insight into this whole process, from a design perspective

Hahah I did not know indeed - so yeah, there goes my "unless"
Still, the answer was rather short

[lusciousmccabe]

3 hours ago, katadder said:

Not a fan of lowering damage as I like playing killy crews. Is a wargame after all. Doesn't always win me the game but it's fun removing opponents models etc.

If we are all just standing around with handbags at dawn how fun will that be?

I'm hoping it just means models don't need to have at least one of the better of defensive abilities to stand up to more than a stiff breeze. It's not that I find M2E excessively killy, but survivability is often the lowest barrier to entry for models and one of the most complained about things for the likes of Hannah, Candy and other expensive pieces that aren't built to take hits. If the general damage got dropped it might open up a bit more design space for things that aren't tanky but you're not worried about getting blitzed in two hits if the cards don't go well for you. 

Although, I think the biggest issue with survivability in M2E is actually rock-paper-shotgun interplay between defensive abilities and stuff that ignores them. Makes it hard to say which models can hold their ground and which are going to evaporate without knowing your opponent's crew in advance. You can make a bit of a guess based on faction sometimes, but they're varied enough at this stage that it's not great and it can be nearly as annoying if you bring a load of stuff to deny defensive abilities and then don't see any of them. Plus some later designs like Zipp and the Emissaries just make a joke out of this by basically being built with it in mind. 

[mrninja13]

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. 

[lusciousmccabe]

8 minutes ago, mrninja13 said:

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

Bulletproof glass, or magic. 

[mrninja13]

Ah right, thanks

[Gnomezilla]

5 hours ago, katadder said:

Not a fan of lowering damage as I like playing killy crews. Is a wargame after all. Doesn't always win me the game but it's fun removing opponents models etc.

If we are all just standing around with handbags at dawn how fun will that be?

Ask your nearest born Lucius player what a joy it can be to maneuver the other player into spending his AP to score your VP.

[edopersichetti]

2 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I'm hoping it just means models don't need to have at least one of the better of defensive abilities to stand up to more than a stiff breeze. It's not that I find M2E excessively killy, but survivability is often the lowest barrier to entry for models and one of the most complained about things for the likes of Hannah, Candy and other expensive pieces that aren't built to take hits. If the general damage got dropped it might open up a bit more design space for things that aren't tanky but you're not worried about getting blitzed in two hits if the cards don't go well for you. 

Although, I think the biggest issue with survivability in M2E is actually rock-paper-shotgun interplay between defensive abilities and stuff that ignores them. Makes it hard to say which models can hold their ground and which are going to evaporate without knowing your opponent's crew in advance. You can make a bit of a guess based on faction sometimes, but they're varied enough at this stage that it's not great and it can be nearly as annoying if you bring a load of stuff to deny defensive abilities and then don't see any of them. Plus some later designs like Zipp and the Emissaries just make a joke out of this by basically being built with it in mind. 

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...

[lusciousmccabe]

But Mr. Tannen has (had, more so) decent wounds for his cost and two good defensive abilities. That still left him on what many consider the lower end of playably survivable, even though he mostly just has to stand around to do 90% of his job. I'm thinking of stuff more like Baby Kade that needs to get into the action, but with his low wounds is such a liability that he mostly gets left in the case. Similarly Guild Riflemen and Convict Gunslingers are cool concepts, but in practice are just too easy to deal with compared with more resilient options. 

I'm fine with things being fragile, but M2E design hasn't done a great job of balancing risk vs reward and you can see from the way design progressed that things basically needed more wounds and/or more relevant defensive abilities than was common in the first book to be a staple. If they carried on with that trend then everything in M3E have extra wounds and/or defenses, which is not much different from cutting damage output. 

[Squirrelich]

13 hours ago, DuBlanck said:

My main problem with the change to cover is the 'aesthetics' of the rules - having all the modifiers work on +/- flips was simple. Exceptions were relatively rare.

Now there's a whole bucketload of pluses and minuses to stat values on top of the +/- flips to track...

This resonates with me. Not sure I'd say "bucketloads", but having few exceptions instead of many doesn't always make it easier to remember. I'm not sure what is better for game play/tactics and such, but after you said this I agree keeping modifiers to one "type" is a positive simplification. I hope I get into Beta to try it so I can get a feel of cost/reward to gameplay of this rules switch.

[drvagodeoz]

Hi, I do not know if this has been answered in this thread (it's too big to review everything). Will the app be updated for free to M3E?

[mrninja13]

I read somewhere that the app will be updated when M3E launches and who bought the 2nd edition cards will have them updated for free, but I can't remember the source

[Squirrelich]

10 minutes ago, drvagodeoz said:

Hi, I do not know if this has been answered in this thread (it's too big to review everything). Will the app be updated for free to M3E?

From the announcement email:

Quote

All of M3E's updated stat cards and its rules will be available at launch for free. 

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