Jump to content

Excellent YouTube battle report posted yesterday


frumpypigskin

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I was waiting for these guys to plug their work here but since nothing has been posted I thought I'd spruik for them (not affiliated, definitely a fan though).

Great production, to easy to follow the play as both players talk through their actions. 

Interesting points with rules discussions but since it was live streamed most rule interpretation points were discussed and either corrected or fleshed out at the end.

Highly recommend, would third floor again!

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree! Was pretty easy to follow, well produced and the discussion during and after the game was awesome to get an insight into the players thoughts.

I think the interpretation of hazardous terrain had a big impact on the game, so maybe can't judge power levels because of it, but it was still a great game to watch.

Keep up the good work Third Floor! (and thanks for linking)

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah

 

****** Spoilers *******

 

I was initially intrigued by MEI Feng with Markus. She definitely loses a big chunk of her mobility without a web of scrap. This reduced her to a concealment aura mule for turn 1.

 

I do believe that the hazardous aura should only be triggered by enemy actions RAW. I seem to recall when this changed during the beta to no longer be the way they played it. It's still really strong, but there is more interaction possible when you don't play it the way that was shown. (As discussed at the end, the 2ping just from the bonus action is a little over the top)

 

She's still a brutal better and the aura is at its best against a bubble crew and a 2nd master turned out to be a meta pick against the triple lawyers who were expecting to boss a bunch of animals around to attack their mates or drop bombs in the wrong half.  Never worked out that way.

 

 

The lack of thought required to use the 2 As miners to full points is a worry. But one could argue if he knew it was going to happen Jesse should have had an independent model in his crew to cover the Non-bubbled flank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2019 at 5:45 AM, frumpypigskin said:

I do believe that the hazardous aura should only be triggered by enemy actions RAW. I seem to recall when this changed during the beta to no longer be the way they played it. It's still really strong, but there is more interaction possible when you don't play it the way that was shown. (As discussed at the end, the 2ping just from the bonus action is a little over the top)

Actually, I think it may have been played correctly if I understand the rules correctly.

On page 37 of the rules pdf, ‘if a Hazardous Terrain Marker is moved, all models the Marker came into base contact with during the move suffer the effects of the Hazardous Terrain.’

So my question would be: If a marker with Hazardous Terrain is moved, causing models not activating or moving through it to suffer the negative effects, why would  abilities that treat the area around them as Hazardous Terrain not behave the same in  the rules?

 

--------

Regardless I thoroughly enjoyed the battle report and I hope we see more in the future!

 

 

  • Respectfully Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ender101 said:

So my question would be: If a marker with Hazardous Terrain is moved, causing models not activating or moving through it to suffer the negative effects, why would  abilities that treat the area around them as Hazardous Terrain not behave the same in  the rules?

For the exact reason that was shown in the Battle Report.

The ease at which it can be abused.

Show me a model that can move a Hazardous Terrain marker 5+ times in an Activation like Mei Feng can move (let alone other shenanigans), without any real test (needs one 8+, or a 6R), and doing 5 damage that ignores Armor to everything within a 7" bubble and doesn't affect friendly models, and I probably still won't change my mind. :)

That's the real difference. How easy it is to move a model with a Hazardous aura (which also tend to be significantly larger) than a model able to move Hazardous Terrain 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Morgan Vening I'm not arguing that it is balanced. I'm arguing that they played it correctly.

I'm saying that with the rules as written, 'abuse' and 'unfair' are not suitable reasons to say that the rules do not allow something.

It should be errata'd or otherwise clarified if deemed unacceptable or for causing a negative play experience, perhaps adding that models with such auras do not function that way, but the way it is being played in the battle report appears to check out in the rules.

'Fair' and 'Legal' are different terms.

  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ender101 said:

Actually, I think it may have been played correctly if I understand the rules correctly.

On page 37 of the rules pdf, ‘if a Hazardous Terrain Marker is moved, all models the Marker came into base contact with during the move suffer the effects of the Hazardous Terrain.’

So my question would be: If a marker with Hazardous Terrain is moved, causing models not activating or moving through it to suffer the negative effects, why would  abilities that treat the area around them as Hazardous Terrain not behave the same in  the rules.

 

The important word in the rules you quote is marker. Moving a marker and moving an aura are two different things. 

Speaking as someone who followed the beta, the word marker was added to the rules to stop what it sounds like happened. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

Speaking as someone who followed the beta, the word marker was added to the rules to stop what it sounds like happened

The TLDW for the incident in the video was...

Mei Feng puts up Vent Steam.

Mei Feng uses Freight train to push herself, hitting the trigger. Every enemy in the 3" Aura gets pinged.

Because Mei Feng used a trigger, she pushes from Constant Motion. Every enemy in the Aura gets pinged.

Mei Feng then does another two actions that moves her. Every enemy gets pinged for each.

Sometimes it's a Walk, sometimes it's a Deadly Claws. With the Jackhammer Kick or Blinded by Iron trigerring, it's 2/4/5 for the target and a ping. And then 1 ping for Jackhammer, possibly 2 pings for Blinded, to every enemy in the aura including the target.

If you don’t have a crapload of Incorporeal or massive amounts of heal, you die, without even getting a Resist flip for most of the damage.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a marker is not a model. A model is not a marker. The quoted p37 rules specifically enable this move of MARKERS. Not hazardous terrain in general or models or auras specifically. All other effects of hazardous terrain require the model being damaged to act or be forced to act. 

This means that the player getting pinged almost universally gets to resist (obey, push, trigger on an attack etc) or choose to get pinged or not (Activate and not act, or somehow use another model to make MEI move first so your models arent in the aura anymore, say obey her railworker to  charge into ). 

 

I don't play with many marker manipulation crews but it seems like any time you move a marker you at least have to pass a test, even if the opponent can't interact. At least; 1 it does require a test and 2 the models effected are Easy to determine throughout the move. Measuring this with an aura can get clunky/require fudging.

 

Being able to put up the aura and walk requires no test and allows no interaction.

 

Setting MEI aside, if you add in her mech porkchop, Howard and the metal golem who all also have the aura and can activate it and move for more unresisted pings off of 50mm bases... Basically I think the rules are like this for good reason.

 

There are other ways wyrd could have gone but I like how they have left the size of it while keeping options for the opponent which encourages decisions which is what gameplay is all about.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also do not think the rules 'should' work this way, as there is a clear case for abuse, so I hope folks don't take my defense of the way they played as the way I think it 'should' be played.

I think the most important thing is that the rules mention what happens when a marker moves with a hazardous aura, but not a model.

If the sole reason it does not work boils down to: 'the rules only mention Markers and not Models, thus the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence,' then the rule should be clarified, there is too much room for interpretation, and the last thing you want to give wargamers is that kind of wiggle room to argue.

From my reading the rules for example, on page 30 the rules use the term 'objects' to describe what auras are attached to. That they offer overt instructions to how a hazardous aura is treated on a Marker (which is an object) on page 37, but not models (which are also objects) leaves one feeling that it is simply an oversight on the part of the devs. It is not unreasonable for players to make that connection after ten minutes flipping back and forth through the rule book and end with 'well it doesn't say, lets just play it like they talk about here on page 37, its not perfect but its better than nothing for this game and we'll look it up later' (As someone who played in first ed this was not an uncommon occurrence).

Even if the ruling comes down to 'the hazardous terrain markers are actual terrain, and model aura abilities are only treated as hazardous terrain when opposing models enter or make actions inside the area,' then that should be spelled out clearly and concisely.

As someone only getting back into the game post beta, I'll argue it is unreasonable to assume players will know the history of a rule's development, especially when those forums are no longer available for perusal. The rule book has to stand on its own, and this is a rules instance where it does not. And it will not be the only such instance, that's the nature of rule books, I've never worked on/bought a game where the customers didn't find oversights right after the ink dried once more eyes got on it. Frustrating? Yes, but its basically just a bug. All it needs is to be patched.

I'm sure I'm not making friends saying it, but instances like this should be clarified so players trying to find a clear answer can easily get one and get on with their game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ender101 said:

From my reading the rules for example, on page 30 the rules use the term 'objects' to describe what auras are attached to. That they offer overt instructions to how a hazardous aura is treated on a Marker (which is an object) on page 37, but not models (which are also objects) leaves one feeling that it is simply an oversight on the part of the devs.

While I get where you're coming from, M3E's rules are far more carefully worded than in previous editions. If a particular word is used, the default assumption should be that the word was chosen deliberately and purposefully. If a rule is written such that it specifically applies to Markers, it should be interpreted as applying only to Markers. Extending those rules to non-Marker objects on the assumption that the devs made a mistake is only ever going to lead to problems.

1 hour ago, Ender101 said:

It is not unreasonable for players to make that connection after ten minutes flipping back and forth through the rule book and end with 'well it doesn't say, lets just play it like they talk about here on page 37, its not perfect but its better than nothing for this game and we'll look it up later' (As someone who played in first ed this was not an uncommon occurrence).

Not unreasonable, but also not the way that M3E should be approached. After "Well, it doesn't say," the follow-up assumption should always be "so I guess nothing happens."

1 hour ago, Ender101 said:

Even if the ruling comes down to 'the hazardous terrain markers are actual terrain, and model aura abilities are only treated as hazardous terrain when opposing models enter or make actions inside the area,' then that should be spelled out clearly and concisely.

The FAQ in this case, I suspect, will read something along these lines:

Q: If a model with an aura that acts like Hazardous terrain moves, are the models that their aura moves over affected by it, as they would be if a Hazardous Marker was moved?
A: No. Models are not Markers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ender101 said:

I also do not think the rules 'should' work this way, as there is a clear case for abuse, so I hope folks don't take my defense of the way they played as the way I think it 'should' be played.

I think the most important thing is that the rules mention what happens when a marker moves with a hazardous aura, but not a model.

If the sole reason it does not work boils down to: 'the rules only mention Markers and not Models, thus the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence,' then the rule should be clarified, there is too much room for interpretation, and the last thing you want to give wargamers is that kind of wiggle room to argue.

From my reading the rules for example, on page 30 the rules use the term 'objects' to describe what auras are attached to. That they offer overt instructions to how a hazardous aura is treated on a Marker (which is an object) on page 37, but not models (which are also objects) leaves one feeling that it is simply an oversight on the part of the devs. It is not unreasonable for players to make that connection after ten minutes flipping back and forth through the rule book and end with 'well it doesn't say, lets just play it like they talk about here on page 37, its not perfect but its better than nothing for this game and we'll look it up later' (As someone who played in first ed this was not an uncommon occurrence).

Even if the ruling comes down to 'the hazardous terrain markers are actual terrain, and model aura abilities are only treated as hazardous terrain when opposing models enter or make actions inside the area,' then that should be spelled out clearly and concisely.

As someone only getting back into the game post beta, I'll argue it is unreasonable to assume players will know the history of a rule's development, especially when those forums are no longer available for perusal. The rule book has to stand on its own, and this is a rules instance where it does not. And it will not be the only such instance, that's the nature of rule books, I've never worked on/bought a game where the customers didn't find oversights right after the ink dried once more eyes got on it. Frustrating? Yes, but its basically just a bug. All it needs is to be patched.

I'm sure I'm not making friends saying it, but instances like this should be clarified so players trying to find a clear answer can easily get one and get on with their game.

 

If you read the Hazardous terrain section, the first part of the section very carefully only refers to Hazardous terrain, and following those rules a piece of hazardous terrain moving through a model does not set off the criteria for Hazardous terrain. The fact that the sub paragraph then refers to Hazardous terrain markers rather than just Hazardous terrain should be enough to show its a subset of the rules that will only apply to markers. There are other, separate, rules for terrain markers in the book, showing that terrain markers are their own subset of things and do follow their own rules.

Auras aren't the same as terrain markers. Mei Feng's vent Steam shows the don't work the same, as the Aura gives model inside it Concealment, not just an area of Concealing terrain.

A pyre marker does not have an aura of hazardous terrain, the marker itself is hazardous. Where as the scrap yard mines does create an aura, so moving the scrap will not count as moving a hazardous terrain marker (the scrap marker does not have the terrain trait Hazadous, it has an aura which has the traits).  I know this is also a subtle difference, but it is one which makes a rules difference.

You are right the rule book does need to stand on its own. I only bought up the beta testing to explain why it is as it is, with some evidence that what I was saying isn't just entirely made up.

There will always be things that are misunderstood when you read through (and different people will misunderstand different things is something I've learnt through these rules forums since 1st ed). But if the answer to the question is "Read the rule book. That section says it only applies to Markers, not all such instances". Then I think its probably not too bad.

As you no doubt know, Malifaux is doomed to be a game with a large number of strange interactions. There will be FAQs needed. The very niche case of Sparks making a marker have a hazardous aura is fairly unique, and then adding ways to move the marker is pretty rare, but I think if you carefully read the rulebook sections on Auras, Hazardous terrain and Terrain markers, you would reach the conclusion that it doesn't harm models when you move it because you aren't moving a hazardous terrain marker. (or at least once its shown to you, you will not see a rules case for why you should suffer the damage).

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Adran @Kadeton Neither of those are unreasonable arguments, but a clarification through FAQ and/or adding another box that talks about 'models with auras of hazardous terrain' are necessary.

I'll point to the video above in the OP itself as a good indicator of this. Neither of those players, or those supporting the stream are new, or newly returned players like me, and made the same mistake, and were unable to really come to an agreement of how the rule should be interpreted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it still unclear to you?

I'm asking because I can't see an argument as to why it should work differently (although I don't watch youtube, so I haven't heard any debate the report has) to how KAdeton and I say. I can understand people mis-reading, or missing sections, but reading all the sections for this I thought it was clear.                                   

I don't like lots of question in a FAQ document, as a personal preference, so this sort of question, that is likely to only crop up once a year or so, I would rather deal with on the rules forum with an explanation of why the rulebook works as is, and rules for markers with hazardous terrain do not apply to everything with hazardous terrain rather than fill the FAQ with 365 similar niche questions which are largely answered by going "the rule book says this, and not something different." Or, I guess in this case , "Hazardous terrain auras are not Hazardous terrain markers and so don't follow the rules for Hazardous terrain markers". 

Of course this only works if you can clearly show from the rulebook what the correct outcome is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do still think that clarification is warranted in either FAQ or Errata.

But to be clear, my stance is not about whether 'I' understand, it is about whether it was the rule book that made things clear and would make things clear for players, and I would argue it does not.

I think that the lack of a paragraph in the rulebook is not going to come across as a clear ruling to most players (gamers I have learned after several forays into game design, simply do not approach things the way you want them to (obviously the intent was X but they're playing it as Y because the rule can be interpreted that way), they have inherent biases, so one of the goals of rules is to kill that avenue of argument).

One side will argue that the lack of a rule means there is no rule so nothing happens, where the other will argue that the lack of a rule means the special ability the model is performing overrides the core rules as stated on page 3.

Call me pessimistic, but I think this question will pop up more often than once a year, there are a fair number of models with Treat Like Hazardous Terrain effects, and I imagine, especially for players branching into new crews or new gaming circles that include them, this question will pop up every time Mei Feng, Sonnia Criid, Howard Langston, Metal Golem, ect., hit the table with a player/opponent who is not familiar with how it works.

Errata and FAQ are inevitable in a game as deep and complex as Malifaux. 

Watch the video (when you have time of course, its a good vid for one) and see how even higher end players, cannot come to a conclusion during the game, and even after discuss it as 'even if Mei doesn't work that way' not 'oh we played that completely wrong and here's where in the rules' (they even discuss the opposite, that they need to start a rules thread at one point) and you will see that perhaps a paragraph in the Hazardous Terrain (even if its just Waldo throwing out a reminder) would not go amiss.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're right, and this question will become 'frequently asked'. And there's nothing wrong with clarifying any rules that people need clarified. My post above wasn't trying to argue that clarification was unnecessary, but more about the kind of mindset that leads to the confusion, and how the way people approach the rules will need to be adjusted for M3E compared to previous editions. It's not at all saying that people don't have good reasons to think that way, just that it's an approach that now causes more problems than it solves - the M3E rules are written without taking those assumptions into account (in a well-intentioned effort to make them more consistent and concise).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information