Third Edition is Coming!!

[SunTsu]

@Mason may I ask you a thing, if it's possible to know?

In the M3e there is a cause that let players to cheat fate if they wouldn't cause of jokers? I mean something that let a player burns some resources (stones/cards/others) in order to cheat fate on a BJ (or opponent's flipped RJ)? If not, it's an open question for the beta???

I ask it cause with some other local henchmen we were discussing about spikes of missfortune and how these can sometimes ruin the fun or an accurately planned game a player made: a BJ on an horror duel, or on that very tactical action for which the player stored the right card from the first turn, and cause pure missluck often cost the entire game...

I thnk that, from a fluff perspective, the inesorable whims of pure luck it's in perfect Malifaux style. But on the other hand, by a game design perspective and looking at fun and in-game-balance, Malifaux is felt (rigtly) as a game where the abilities of the players, their tactical and strategical choices have a much more weight on the randomness of a dice roll. So, by this point of view, we agreed that for the game wellness would be much better to limit these high spikes.

I had even a new player that started to play Malifaux (TT exactly) and suddenly he dropped cause somebad experience with high spikes of missfortune for what, really, he couldn't do nothing. Obviously, I think he was too wuick to judge so negative the game just for a pair of missluck episodes. Nevertless, if you approach Malifaux thinking to play a game where luck is checked at bay and you have similar bad experiences, it doeasn't help...

So, I'd like just to know if devs detected this as a problem and wrote a rule to handle it, or at least there is room to discuss it in beta.

Thanks from now for your reply (or lack of it...)

[SunTsu]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:27 PM, 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?

Sorry, but this and all the following discussion it's a completely non-sense to me...

I'm going to explain my thoughts.

What does it means comparing 1 Izamu against 2 TT Brothers, in a vacuum and limited perspective of who is able to kill who??? What the hell is this based on? What does demonstate?

Even if it would be true that Izamu would so easily eat 2xTTB (and someone else showed that probabily this isn't so true...), we perfectly know that Malifaux is a S&S based game, and that those victory condition are usually not linked on killing all opponent's models you can see on the battlefield (that is another game... ). Even when you can make points by killing something, it's quite never a free and deliberate massacre of everything moving of the field, but it requires a certain degree of planning and target selection.

Overmore, in that example (I know you didn't made it @edopersichetti, I quoted your message cause this discussion started to deriving more or less from that point in timeline I guess... 😘 ) are compared a strong and durable beater against some tools/scheme models. And, also, this comparison is made in a total vacuum of supporting models and player objectives...

All this, just to back up the idea that a pass mechanic wuld be a bad thing for the game...?!?!?!?! Really...???? What the hell is based on this discussion???? I can't understand...

We had not any rules in hand. We don't know how the game/models balance will be. We had not have a single playtest match of the game under the new rules. But someone can say, with absolute certainty, that a pass mechanic in itself is bad for the game.

What we know for certain from several years of Malifaux is that OA had been the main argument of the game, the main concept around build every crew, and surely a very BIG problem in game design.

The problem with OA, as someone else pointed out, is not linked to specific single models, but is a "bug" n the basic rules. This alone narrows the design spaces for the devs, let balancing models harder and makes the game less variable in crew building.

And devs are really very focused on this, as results very clearly since from the Stuffed Piglets errata.

Essentially, the message of the Wyrd's game designers is that, if we want to let evolve the game and make it better, we have to handle the OA problem...

[Artiee]

40 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

@Mason may I ask you a thing, if it's possible to know?

In the M3e there is a cause that let players to cheat fate if they wouldn't cause of jokers? I mean something that let a player burns some resources (stones/cards/others) in order to cheat fate on a BJ (or opponent's flipped RJ)? If not, it's an open question for the beta???

I ask it cause with some other local henchmen we were discussing about spikes of missfortune and how these can sometimes ruin the fun or an accurately planned game a player made: a BJ on an horror duel, or on that very tactical action for which the player stored the right card from the first turn, and cause pure missluck often cost the entire game...

I thnk that, from a fluff perspective, the inesorable whims of pure luck it's in perfect Malifaux style. But on the other hand, by a game design perspective and looking at fun and in-game-balance, Malifaux is felt (rigtly) as a game where the abilities of the players, their tactical and strategical choices have a much more weight on the randomness of a dice roll. So, by this point of view, we agreed that for the game wellness would be much better to limit these high spikes.

I had even a new player that started to play Malifaux (TT exactly) and suddenly he dropped cause somebad experience with high spikes of missfortune for what, really, he couldn't do nothing. Obviously, I think he was too wuick to judge so negative the game just for a pair of missluck episodes. Nevertless, if you approach Malifaux thinking to play a game where luck is checked at bay and you have similar bad experiences, it doeasn't help...

So, I'd like just to know if devs detected this as a problem and wrote a rule to handle it, or at least there is room to discuss it in beta.

Thanks from now for your reply (or lack of it...)

I personally hope not.   There is only 1 BJ in the deck. My players seem to be fine with it.  They laugh when they flip a BJ and then a RJ.   If they are getting it to show multiplie times in a game, it may be the way that are shuffling their cards.

[Adran]

44 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

 

I ask it cause with some other local henchmen we were discussing about spikes of missfortune and how these can sometimes ruin the fun or an accurately planned game a player made: a BJ on an horror duel, or on that very tactical action for which the player stored the right card from the first turn, and cause pure missluck often cost the entire game.

Honestly, I've probably played over 500 games, with about 300 being M2e, and in all that time I think I have had 2 games ( one each edition) where I would say I lost because of the joker rules. (Both were because I couldn't cheat, it's possible there are some I won that I shouldn't have thanks to a joker, but I don't think so). There have been many incidents where it made a big difference, but it wasn't the single issue that caused the loss. Sure, occasionally it kills your master turn 2, but that doesn't mean game loss. I've won and lost more games because of bad/good hands than jokers. It can disrupt plans but normally if it's not the final turn you can try and adapt. 

I'm not sure how many single incidents in a game where the flip is that critical that to lose that flip will cost you the game. At least not the way I play. (I'm likely to make a mistake somewhere so try and have redundancy in the list, and a back up plan for when things go wrong). 

[mrninja13]

There's an argument to be made that if you really lost because of a bad flip (or die roll), then you really weren't playing well and you might have deserved to lose. It's not that dissimilar than rolling snake eyes (or your opponent rolling boxcars) on a crucial roll in any other game. 

I once lost a warmachine game because my attempt to kill the enemy warcaster with mine ended up with him remaining with 1 wound left due do my bad rolls, and he then proceeded to kill me in his turn. Sure, dice were to blame and it was frustrating (but also a fin anecdote to tell), but I can't claim I did play a good game overall.

[WWHSD]

2 hours ago, mrninja13 said:

There's an argument to be made that if you really lost because of a bad flip (or die roll), then you really weren't playing well and you might have deserved to lose.

If the game comes down to a single critical flip, does that mean that neither player played well?

[solkan]

1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

If the game comes down to a single critical flip, does that mean that neither player played well?

What’s the definition of “I won because I got lucky”?

[Brandu]

3 hours ago, aquenaton said:

 At my community, the Black Joker is considered the best card to have on your hand, because it means you can be shure you are not flipping it at the worst possible scenario.

Totally agree here. I want to know where that thing is....

And I have had situations ruined because I flipped the Black Joker, but it like it says in the book: Bad Things Happen

[lusciousmccabe]

I think having more than 1 flip worth of an edge over your opponent is a pretty good indicator you're playing well.

Although if the game does come down to that you could both be playing equally well, or equally badly.

[Da Git]

8 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Sorry, but this and all the following discussion it's a completely non-sense to me...

I'm going to explain my thoughts.

What does it means comparing 1 Izamu against 2 TT Brothers, in a vacuum and limited perspective of who is able to kill who??? What the hell is this based on? What does demonstate?

Even if it would be true that Izamu would so easily eat 2xTTB (and someone else showed that probabily this isn't so true...), we perfectly know that Malifaux is a S&S based game, and that those victory condition are usually not linked on killing all opponent's models you can see on the battlefield (that is another game... ). Even when you can make points by killing something, it's quite never a free and deliberate massacre of everything moving of the field, but it requires a certain degree of planning and target selection.

Overmore, in that example (I know you didn't made it @edopersichetti, I quoted your message cause this discussion started to deriving more or less from that point in timeline I guess... 😘 ) are compared a strong and durable beater against some tools/scheme models. And, also, this comparison is made in a total vacuum of supporting models and player objectives...

All this, just to back up the idea that a pass mechanic wuld be a bad thing for the game...?!?!?!?! Really...???? What the hell is based on this discussion???? I can't understand...

We had not any rules in hand. We don't know how the game/models balance will be. We had not have a single playtest match of the game under the new rules. But someone can say, with absolute certainty, that a pass mechanic in itself is bad for the game.

What we know for certain from several years of Malifaux is that OA had been the main argument of the game, the main concept around build every crew, and surely a very BIG problem in game design.

The problem with OA, as someone else pointed out, is not linked to specific single models, but is a "bug" n the basic rules. This alone narrows the design spaces for the devs, let balancing models harder and makes the game less variable in crew building.

And devs are really very focused on this, as results very clearly since from the Stuffed Piglets errata.

Essentially, the message of the Wyrd's game designers is that, if we want to let evolve the game and make it better, we have to handle the OA problem...

Strongly agree with this.  It's really comparing apples and oranges.  10T Bros should not be in combat with Izamu.  It would be very difficult for him to catch them & get more than 1 attack against them unless it's on the 10T bro's terms, in which case, they probably have Df7 and + to Df meaning Izamu's probably only going to land 1 hit anyway.  So I'd say it will probably take him about 3-4 activations to kill them.  I call that a win for the Bros, as they're very much doing their job of holding him up.  If their job is to run schemes, good luck on catching them with Izamu. Catching one is possible, but both when they're one either side of the table? Not gunna happen.

For a closer comparison, take Izamu Vs 2 Komainu.  This would be much closer battle, especially if Komainu are supported by Toshiro like they should be.  Komainu, between armour, HtK will last 4 weak hits from Izamu or 3 if one of the first two hits were a moderate or severe, at least 3 at the bare minimum anyway.  Komainu have Slow & Burning triggers (built-in if near an ancestor).  But even here, it's still an unfair comparison.  In Malifaux, combats are usually won and lost on who determines them, get the match ups in your favour and you'll win. The game overall is won and lost on Strats and schemes.  You can win every combat on the board and still lose the game.

9 hours ago, SunTsu said:

@Mason may I ask you a thing, if it's possible to know?

In the M3e there is a cause that let players to cheat fate if they wouldn't cause of jokers? I mean something that let a player burns some resources (stones/cards/others) in order to cheat fate on a BJ (or opponent's flipped RJ)? If not, it's an open question for the beta???

I ask it cause with some other local henchmen we were discussing about spikes of missfortune and how these can sometimes ruin the fun or an accurately planned game a player made: a BJ on an horror duel, or on that very tactical action for which the player stored the right card from the first turn, and cause pure missluck often cost the entire game...

I thnk that, from a fluff perspective, the inesorable whims of pure luck it's in perfect Malifaux style. But on the other hand, by a game design perspective and looking at fun and in-game-balance, Malifaux is felt (rigtly) as a game where the abilities of the players, their tactical and strategical choices have a much more weight on the randomness of a dice roll. So, by this point of view, we agreed that for the game wellness would be much better to limit these high spikes.

I had even a new player that started to play Malifaux (TT exactly) and suddenly he dropped cause somebad experience with high spikes of missfortune for what, really, he couldn't do nothing. Obviously, I think he was too wuick to judge so negative the game just for a pair of missluck episodes. Nevertless, if you approach Malifaux thinking to play a game where luck is checked at bay and you have similar bad experiences, it doeasn't help...

So, I'd like just to know if devs detected this as a problem and wrote a rule to handle it, or at least there is room to discuss it in beta.

Thanks from now for your reply (or lack of it...)

However, I strongly disagree with this. I used to think the same as you, but I've since come around to the idea that jokers are integral to the game for all the reasons others have given.  The Jokers offer that element of uncertainty that forces good players to adapt.  As others have said, it's no difference than rolling snake eyes or box cars in a dice-based game. Luck, both with dice and cards, also make some of the most enjoyable and memorable moments in games.  I've had my SM biker biker sergeant kill a Daemon Prince on the charge or a single Scout sniper rifle destroy a Wave Serpant to win me games of 40k.  On the same token, I've had an enemy Malifaux Rat survive a Yasunori charge (thanks to Jokers) or an enemy Huggy kill my Reva with my own Archie (with no jokers involved)!  If you can't look back and these moments and joke and smile about it (no matter how frustrated you were at the time, I was super pissed when my Archie killed my Reva!), than honestly, you probably do need to re-evaluate why you're playing and maybe look at that old cliche of play chess.  And really, if Jokers are an issue for your whole community, than come to a gentleman's agreement and take them out. I highly doubt the Wyrd Police are going to swoop in and take your models and cards .

Even if we did remove Jokers, Malifaux would still have a substantial luck element.  I can remember games I lost because I didn't draw a single 13 for 3 turns running or Marcus players not drawing any Tomes or my local Arcanist player not winning the crucial Initiative flip for like 6-7 games running even with Seize the Day (this one really makes me smile @Morgan Vening!). 

[Rufess]

45 minutes ago, Da Git said:

...And really, if Jokers are an issue for your whole community, than come to a gentleman's agreement and take them out. I highly doubt the Wyrd Police are going to swoop in and take your models and cards . ...

Off topic, but this makes me recall a few games with home rule to allow fate deck customization: players are allowed to completely remove 1 suit from , and put 0~3 pair of joker into their deck. It was a fun time.

[Da Git]

6 minutes ago, Rufess said:

Off topic, but this makes me recall a few games with home rule to allow fate deck customization: players are allowed to completely remove 1 suit from , and put 0~3 pair of joker into their deck. It was a fun time.

That actually sounds really fun!  Deffo go for 3 pairs of Jokers... Go hard or go home!

[Mason]

We reduced the impact of Jokers, as people have seen from the lower damage caused by a Red Joker on a damage flip. That's about as far down that particular road as we're gonna go; for every person that wants the Jokers pulled out of the deck entirely (and yes, there were proponents for this in testing), there's someone who believes that the Joker randomness is what keeps the game exciting and interesting.

At the moment, I think we're in a good spot with M3E. The Jokers are important and can interrupt plans, but you'll have less "Cheat Red Joker on a blast attack, win the game" moments.

[Stonewall78]

1 hour ago, Mason said:

 (and yes, there were proponents for this in testing)

 

String those people up All joking aside the jokers are what I bet most people will remember from past games. Those moments when all your plans where thrown out the window due to a black joker. It is what even makes the game more strategic when you are flipping plus's, as you are like do I risk flipping another card when I haven't seen the black joker yet.

[CSchmeed]

35 minutes ago, Stonewall78 said:

String those people up  

This comment gives Jack Daw horrible flashbacks.

[Exgypsy]

Schemes and Stones posted a challenge for this month to play without jokers.  We did for two weeks, and most people preferred it without.  Lat night, i gave to option to play with out without, and my opponent wanted without.  It seems we've been having a lot of fun in the past few weeks playing without.

[Strangedane]

Please don't remove jokers! They add an awesome aspect to the game, there is always that little risk! I played 2 hours ago, had his henchman down to 1w and only had one attack left in that turn. Hit with RJ and smiled, only to draw Black joker on damage - my opponent and I laughed SO much! 

And I bet you that all of us have stories like that

[Thrawnic]

Agreed, Jokers are the spice of the game.

Plus they add an in game representation of the idea that 'No matter how good your plan, something can always go wrong, and no matter how desperate your situation something might always save the day'

 

[SunTsu]

Firt of all, thanks everyone for your interest in this argument and sharing your thoughts. I always appreciate a constructive discussion and sharing of points-of-views, even and particulary when I don't agree completely with those of the others. I always found that this enrich my mind and souls, and help me to find a new perspective about things.

That said...

 

I think I was missunderstood about the jokers stuff. I'm not supporting the idea of removing jokers from the game (even if playing without jokers it's perfectly possible and don't remove random aspect neither fun from the game).

On 8/16/2018 at 6:37 PM, Artiee said:

There is only 1 BJ in the deck. My players seem to be fine with it. They laugh when they flip a BJ and then a RJ.

There is 1 BJ in your deck and 1 RJ the opponent can flip, both situation prevent you to cheat. Considering that a deck is composed by 54 cards, there is roughly 1/27 chances to not be able to flip (really a little less, considering that not every time you make a duel it involves the opponent's deck). This is a particular high precentual. But it isn't neither a neglectable one. I thhink we can agree we are less or more the same chances of snake-eyes on 2d6.

On 8/16/2018 at 7:23 PM, mrninja13 said:

There's an argument to be made that if you really lost because of a bad flip (or die roll), then you really weren't playing well and you might have deserved to lose. It's not that dissimilar than rolling snake eyes (or your opponent rolling boxcars) on a crucial roll in any other game.

Exactly this. But the difference is in the words that guy said during his last game at Malifaux: "It's the same thing that in WH... so why I should play this instead of another?".

Now, I know that's not exactly the same and that the game is completely different. But the point is that Malifaux is a complex game hat requires complex in-game analysis. And it's a game of resources management and strategical/tactical play more than pure luck. So wargamers approaching Malifaux usually are searching for these kind of experience in a game.

The problem in the jokers how they are concepted now is not in the probability to fail a duel in itself. The problem is in the "spikes" of missfortune and in that the jokers rules cut completely away the resources management stuff...

About spikes, we know that in Malifaux much more than in other wargames, not all flips are equal. If in WH your space marine unit shoot at alien scums, roll 1 on a particular die doesn't much so much usually. In Malifaux, flipping a BJ in shooting randomization on that particular model you wanted to hit, or in that vital tactical action you worked on all the turn and for that you stored that very right cards, sacrificing something else previously in that turn, it's absolutely not on the same level...

About resources management, jokers are a pure luck event that prevent any possibility to do something about it, cutting away from the game the engine itself of the concept arout whom are developed the rules...

I'm not saying "Hey! Let's to remove all the randomness from the game!". I'm more on the side "Hey, don't you think this could be a bit too much in some situation?"

On 8/16/2018 at 7:27 PM, aquenaton said:

@SunTsu, i know certain times a black joker can ruin your plan, I even had a game in wich I lost two of Reva´s activations because a black joker on horror duels, but the existence of that card means your plan needs to contemplate the option of your action failing because that flip. At my community, the Black Joker is considered the best card to have on your hand, because it means you can be shure you are not flipping it at the worst possible scenario. When playing gremlins, I move the deck a lot thanks to reckless and the ammount of AP I can generate. I try to make most plans to rely on not one good flip but many. Sommer is basically hiring skeeters only to make shure he does not flip a black joker on his 0 action!

I agree with the BJ having the best place in your hand. ut this introduce more randomness in the game: if I have the luck to get the BJ in my hand from the first turn, you play at a disadvantage since you can randomly fail an important action, while I at a cost of a single card cannot.

Again... this rule indirectly promote swarm crews (so OA thing): if I have a lot of little actions to do, getting a BJ (or opponent's RJ) doeasn't hurt me much. If I have many elite models, getting a no-cheat clause on one of their actions is much more problematic. This is a game design problem to not underestimate.

Finally, some factions/models have tools to avoid the randomness while others don't. Your Somer+Skeeters exemple exactly show this, and again can rise a game design problem since if not everyone get the same tool, and I think that it's not by accident that Somer is undoubtedly one of the best master of the game.

 

On 8/17/2018 at 3:04 AM, Da Git said:

However, I strongly disagree with this. I used to think the same as you, but I've since come around to the idea that jokers are integral to the game for all the reasons others have given.  The Jokers offer that element of uncertainty that forces good players to adapt.  

Even if we did remove Jokers, Malifaux would still have a substantial luck element.

Infact I'm not contesting the jokers by themself. I'm aying that maybe cutting away any possibility to cheat in a game based on this aspect can be a little too much. As you said, even fixing this aspect will let the game have substantial luck element.

 

8 hours ago, Mason said:

We reduced the impact of Jokers, as people have seen from the lower damage caused by a Red Joker on a damage flip. That's about as far down that particular road as we're gonna go; for every person that wants the Jokers pulled out of the deck entirely (and yes, there were proponents for this in testing), there's someone who believes that the Joker randomness is what keeps the game exciting and interesting.

At the moment, I think we're in a good spot with M3E. The Jokers are important and can interrupt plans, but you'll have less "Cheat Red Joker on a blast attack, win the game" moments.

First, thanks for your reply.

Then... I can understand why someone would like to bring jokers out of the game. But I understand also those who likes jokers as extremely random event.

It's for these reasons I proposed a middle way rule. I was starting to test an "house rule" about jokers when M3e was announced.

My proposed rule was:

When a jokers prevent a model to cheat, it can spend:

- 1ss to cheat a weak card;

- +1ss to cheat a moderate card instead;

- +1ss if that model cannot use ss;

- you can discard 2 cards in place of each soulstone.

So, basically with this rule flipping a BJ is however a very bad affair, but at least you can have a choise that let players to partially bypass the no-cheat stipulation.

Essentially, a minion that want to cheat a 6-10 need to burn 3ss (that means around 5 wounds less for a master/henchman) or an entire hand of cards, while a master/henchman wanted to cheat just a very low card should need brn "just" 1ss/2cards.

This rule have the merit to not alter too much the impact of a joker flip, but giving players some choice about that can be used just in critical situation, since it comes at a very high cost.

If we think about it, it change few in opposed duels: it's very difficult that this rule will let you win an opposed duel since you can cheat just a 10 maximum, but can help mitigate the missfortune spike putting the winner on negative for damage or hitting that defensive trigger your model would need. It can be a bit more useful for tactical abilities that don't require a severe card, since even if at an high cost, it can let you you action works.

My concern about this rule (I had no time to test it exentensively for now) is that can be too much punishing to let an effective use. So maybe it would better a variant where you can cheat a weak or moderate card send that first soulstone...

 

These are just thoughts and suggestions. What I would like is an M3e that would be much better to attract new players to this game. Since this jokers discussion is clearly a matter of very personal taste, I would like that the manual would propose players with some alternative rules. Something like: "ok, you can play without jokers, or with jokers that let you impossible to cheat, or with a rule that let you cheat by spending some resources. The standard rule is ...".

Just my two cents... 😃

 

P.S.: I don't know if I will be in the beta, but I hope to continue this discussion there with all of you. Thanks for your time.

[Mason]

3 hours ago, SunTsu said:

It's for these reasons I proposed a middle way rule. I was starting to test an "house rule" about jokers when M3e was announced.😃

We have no intention of changing how Jokers function at this point.

[whodares]

@Mason Do you have any information which you can share regarding the Cat boxes of Hamelin? I've been thinking of getting them, but the current investment is quite big. To play Hamelin, you need the crew ($90), Cat Princess box x2 (50) and Cat Herders (30) whichs brings it to a total of $170. I live in Europe, so I'll also have to add in a decent amount of shipping cost and tariffs, which will probably raise the total to €200+

 

That's quite a lot of money, so I'm holding off on buying until I know whether or not Hamelin will still work with those boxes in M3E. It would really rub the wrong foot if I bought it and He stops using the Rat Kings/ Rat Catchers/Rats in general. It's already been shown with different masters that Nightmare boxes don't stop any drastic changes.

 

Could you answer this question or is that already too much into the NDA/uncertain territory?

[Strangedane]

Can we expect the deployment zones to remain as they are? I assume so but since I am looking at new mats, I would like to be sure, as 3 new mats with printed deployment cost a fair bit 

[Tors]

Deployment zones will change. It was stated at the release page. 

[katadder]

7 minutes ago, Tors said:

Deployment zones will change. It was stated at the release page. 

yeah this is annoying for those of us with printed maps. i think current DZs work, do we really want to be closer?

[Morgan Vening]

Finally caught up on this thread. Most of my thoughts have been eloquently (or not) said by other people.

There are three issues I have that were mentioned, that I'd like to expand on.

1) Card size. I get that there seems to be a reason for people wanting the larger sizes, but I'd much rather that the standard size be normal poker size, with the option of purchasing larger cards for those who need a greater space for larger text. Personally, I think the increase in art on the cards to about half the real estate on the front, is completely unnecessary (especially if visual aid is a reason), and is much better utilized in the books, than on the cards. And I think it'd be easier to scale up, than scale down.

2) Master Costs. I've read through all the discussions, and while I do tend to agree with the "pay for the first" (mainly because it's a lot easier to fix an imbalance by changing cost, than it is to try and tune abilities to make equivalence), and requiring a Master and a Totem to be a total equivalent cost seems like a frikkin nightmare (given the range on totems is so significant, from Huggy to the Mechanical Attendant), the one thing that came to mind that hasn't been asked or answered, is what about Henchmen? Unless there's a significant change in the way things are handled, it'll be even worse than the current system, where Henchmen were crippled as Leaders. Without potential for significant cache, this seems even worse.

Again, they may have taken it in to consideration, but I really liked the idea that you could forgo a Master, take a cheaper Henchman, and get a Soulstone/numerical advantage to compensate for the lack of quality at the top. And given there's several Henchmen that would be interesting to see as leaders that kind of fit "outside" the standard hierarchies, having it be balanced by them having a higher recruitment allotment, seems reasonable. I'm thinking Grimwell with the removal of McMourning ties, Hinamatsu as the new PUPPET leader if there's noone else, and the obvious Wrath. Unless Henchmen get a significant boost when chosen as a Leader (and no, Wrath's +1 AP and minor push action Upgrade wouldn't cut it), then we're back to rarely seeing Henchmen as Leaders. And if that's where they want to go, that's an understandable design choice, but I'd rather have the option there without it being a clearly bad choice. Spawn Mother leading a horde of swamp creatures without needing Zoraida, seems fun to me. Points costs to purchase the leader fixes most of those issues. Make it 70pts, and having to buy Leader and Totem, and that part's solved too.

3) Non-Keyword tax. Others have already pointed out the problem. There's a discrepancy in value between buying one 12pt NK model, and three 4pt NK models. If in the Keyword they're balanced at those costs, then you've created a relative imbalance out of Keyword. Two suggestions to solve it, would be to either have a small tax holiday (say 15 pts?), or a tax on volume, not individual models. So if you wanted, as an example, 10pts of Non-Keyword models, it'd cost a Soulstone. 20? Two. 30? Three. That way you're not getting an issue where someone wanting playing Perdita wanting 3 Guild Hounds, is paying comparatively more than 2 Witchling Stalkers, who is paying more than 1 Dead Rider (using M2E costs).