Is there too much Scheme Marker hate?

[Math Mathonwy]

It seems that both me and my opponents avoid all Scheme Marker Schemes except Power Ritual and Breakthrough as there seems to be so many abilities that deal with enemy Scheme Markers extremely efficiently if they are somewhere other than the very corners of the battlefield, basically. Unless your crew poops Scheme Markers absolutely everywhere while doing other things, it seems that making them is more effort with less payoff than removing them. Which seems very weird.

Anyone else noting a similar thing or are we just weird?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Some crews are quite good at it to the point that it isn't worth dropping them (like Molly), but in many cases it seems like you can deal with your opponent's denial.

With Nightmare crew, for instance, Lord Chompy Bits is the only one able to do it efficiently, so he can be overloaded by dropping heaps or guarding the scheme markers with scarier beaters.

[Hobby Wyrd]

Then there is Nellie...they are a must for her crew.

[Adran]

I think it very much depends on what you are facing. There are some keywords that will remove lots of enemy scheme markers, while others don't touch it. 

Most of the time it costs a similar number of actions to remove the marker as to drop it, so you can either try to activate them out, or bluff them so they remove the wrong markers before you drop the ones you need.

So it probably depends on your local groups.

[Trample]

I agree that it depends quite a bit on the keyword you're facing. I've been asking opponents running keywords I am still not familiar with what capabilities they have to eat scheme markers before I pick schemes. If they have a few things they can do I absolutely avoid those kinds of schemes. I run a lot of Molly, so I wouldn't take those kinds of schemes against me!  

[Fetid Strumpet]

Don’t really agree with that. We talked about this on the discord. I personally think the issue is there just aren’t enough models in every keyword that can efficiently drop scheme markers. This I think has been an unfortunate side effect of the otherwise mostly great keyword idea.

In 2e each faction had very efficient ways to drop scheme markers. I remember being in arguments with people about how such and such a master didn’t need their own persona scheme runner because as a faction we had X, Y, and Z. I’m in the reverse argument now that every keyword does need its own efficient scheme runner. 

Remember, as unsexy as it is, Malifaux, stripped down to its most basic, skeletal structure, is a game of resource management. You are trying to turn your resources (SS, cards, wounds, actions, etc...) into VP more efficiently than your opponent.

It costs the same amount of actions and resources to perform an interact for a low cost model as it does for a high cost. Since the vast majority of High Cost models pay that cost for abilities that have little to do with scheming, it makes sense that in general you’re going to want the lower cost models scheming for you since spending 4 or 5 stones to get markers is vastly more efficient than spending 10 or 11 for the same amount of markers.

The issue of the keyword system then raises its head. Lower cost models are vastly more inefficient to hire out of keyword. Not only is there often a loss of synergy, but if you hire an OOK model who normally costs 4 and you pay 5 that’s what, 25% more expensive for you? In a game that is win or lost on the margins of efficiency that’s a hard pill to swallow.

I personally feel the next GG document will need to take the fact that very few crews will want to take scheme marker based schemes into account, or they are going to need to make a concerted effort to give every keyword something efficient at dropping markers, if they don’t have them already.

[LeperColony]

If a crew is less efficient at scheme marker manipulation, that means it's better at other things.  In a perfectly balanced ecosystem, those other advantages should offer a net equivalent capability to impact the final game state, say by killing enemy models more efficiently and thereby reducing the number of scheme markers.  Of course, such exquisite balance is not present or even possible, but the fact that the different keywords have different strengths does help to flesh out a system that is, as you've noted, essentially resource management.

While I agree with you on the relative cost increase of the OOK tax, I'm not sure I accept your conclusion that the increased (and, relatively speaking, increasingly high percentage) OOK cost necessarily represents a "hard pill to swallow."  Four to five may be a 25% cost hike, but compared to your overall resources, it's only 2% of your 50 ss (and even less, because really you have more than 50 counting master and totem).   If you're hiring an OOK model for specific capabilities you're otherwise lacking, the return on your 2% investment should be expected to be worth it.  And in a game with as many random interactions as Malifaux has, it's hard to say that the 2% spent on the tax really puts you that far behind the margins of efficiency.   

Though admittedly I personally stay within keyword, but mostly for thematic and idiosyncratic reasons.  I also don't "like" paying the OOK tax, and as a result I tend to avoid it in cases where the rational choice probably is to include the model.  However, people make irrational economic choices all the time (Freakanomics anyone?).

[Gnomezilla]

My meta, which has a ‘kill first and maybe think about scoring after everything opposed to me is dead’  non-scheming mentality, doesn’t even refer to Search the Ruins by name: it’s strictly known as ‘Free VP’. The other schemey schemes don’t see much use. Having a pool of enemies who can and will generally engage on turn one cuts down on the projected lifespan of any scheme runner quick enough to start scoring the schemey schemes in time.

[TheJoyInGaming]

I am wondering how much Destructible Terrain people put on their tables at Set Up. The reason I am wondering is because Search the Ruins could be aptly renamed as ‘Free VP’ given the relatively small Action investment it takes to Score it compared to other marker schemes, and having more Terrain able to be removed could remedy that. I know that my Wife and I just define any HT1 objects as Destructible ie fences or shrubs. Of course, Search the Ruins being ‘Free VP’ is the symptom of the larger problem that is the lack of downside for “Kill First; Scheme Later” crews.

On a small side-note, I wonder if it would interesting/balancing to add a Strategy, or Scheme, in GG that added new Traits to already existing Terrain pieces.

[Maniacal_cackle]

8 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

It costs the same amount of actions and resources to perform an interact for a low cost model as it does for a high cost. Since the vast majority of High Cost models pay that cost for abilities that have little to do with scheming, it makes sense that in general you’re going to want the lower cost models scheming for you since spending 4 or 5 stones to get markers is vastly more efficient than spending 10 or 11 for the same amount of markers.

I don't agree with this.  Most of the cost of scheming is the movement. You might spend 4-5 actions getting into position, but only one to interact.

Efficient movement is key for scheming. For these purposes, some 7-8 cost models like Bandersnarch, Widow Weaver, and Philip and the Nanny are much better scheme runners than cheaper models like Alps. Insidious Madness, the most expensive Nightmare minion, is the best scheme runner due to mobility and disengaging.

Not to mention survivability is key for scheming. The other game my opponent tried to use a 7 cost model for scheme running, so I used an 8 cost model to deny him positioning all game. He couldn't safely get to his target. You need high-cost guards for your scheme runners.

Of course some crews like Molly have 4-cost models with insane movement (like Crooligans that can teleport). So some crews are more efficient and make it super easy to scheme. But it seems like most crews can do it once you learn who your scheme runners are and what your mechanic for avoiding enemy denial is (either protection or hyper mobility or both).

[Maniacal_cackle]

Another thing to consider is scheming is a crew-wide activity.

Your opponent is going to struggle to deny your scheme markers if you kill everything within 12" of where you're dropping it. Some crews scheme by being kill-y.

Of course, some crews are able to bypass this (Molly with her 18"  double-attack Archie and Crooligan teleports), but overall I find it works.

Remember, schemes are half the victory points. You should be dedicating quite a bit of resources to getting yours/denying your opponent.

[Fetid Strumpet]

And there are a number of cheap models with hyper efficient movement. That is the default model that is successful at scheming. Necropunks, Katashrio, Crooligans, etc. if you’re paying 10 for one model that can do that, and I pay 4 stones for 1 model or 8 stones for 2 models that can do that I am achieving far more efficiency than you. 

[LeperColony]

3 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Remember, schemes are half the victory points. You should be dedicating quite a bit of resources to getting yours/denying your opponent.

Agreed, and by the same token, since they are half your VPs, it should be non-trivial to secure them.  

That some crews are by default better at scheme running than others is true, but Malifaux has a lot of variables.  I find I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the margins are so thin that the 1 SS OOK tax is too steep to overcome hiring OOK models if one can fulfill a critical role.  Perhaps on occasion a game will come down to something that close, but I feel it'd be pretty rare.

In fact, I've won enough games where I've "wasted" a SS (for instance, stoning for a suit and flipping it anyway being most common) or had unspent stones at the end.  Crew builds are just one element.  There's skill, random variables, terrain placement, etc.

Now, to the OP's original question as to whether there's too much scheme marker hate, that's going to differ from person to person.  Currently I think it's not bad, but it isn't something I'd like to see proliferate much more.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Man, apparently I have a lot of thoughts on this topic.

Yet other issues to consider:

Masking your signals

Don't make it obvious what you're doing. If you send your model straight towards the enemy's backline and Breakthrough is a scheme, your opponent is going to have people in position to deny you. Have your models attempt to do something else that masks what their true objective is. If your scheme-running team of 2-3 models chases down some annoying enemy models in the backline, and they dedicate their resources to running away from you, you can veer off and plant schemes.

Through this method, you can make the opponent use THEIR movement to get 5-10" away from you, and then when you move 5-10" away from them and drop a scheme, they're way out of position.

Bluffing and Fakeouts

I often drop scheme markers for schemes I'm not actually doing (such as in my corner for the second point of power ritual on deployment). This provides a lot of pressure for the opponent to come and deal with my shenanigans, then it turns out I'm not even doing those schemes.

My opponent once did this with a 7-cost model, and I sent a 6-cost model to try to stop him. I wanted to score Hold up Their Forces. He used movement shenanigans to run away with the 7-cost model, and brought in a 5-cost model. HE scored Hold up Their Forces because he used the scheme-markers as a trap to attract my model. Or more accurately, the potential of the scheme marker being dropped (since I started moving to deny before he was even in position to drop his marker).

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

And there are a number of cheap models with hyper efficient movement. That is the default model that is successful at scheming. Necropunks, Katashrio, Crooligans, etc. if you’re paying 10 for one model that can do that, and I pay 4 stones for 1 model or 8 stones for 2 models that can do that I am achieving far more efficiency than you. 

But if you're just using two 4-cost models, they're going to fold like tissue paper when your opponent tries to kill them.

I think of it as scheme marker 'teams.' For instance, Archie + two crooligans or Philip and the Nanny + two crooligans or any 2 of Bandersnatch + Widow Weaver + Insidious Madness.

When you account for the stones cost of those protecting your scheme runners, you're looking at 15-20 stones potentially. Not necessarily the whole game, but you need them doing it at least some of the time.

[Mycellanious]

1 hour ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

And there are a number of cheap models with hyper efficient movement. That is the default model that is successful at scheming. Necropunks, Katashrio, Crooligans, etc. if you’re paying 10 for one model that can do that, and I pay 4 stones for 1 model or 8 stones for 2 models that can do that I am achieving far more efficiency than you. 

The Mechanical Rider would like to respectfully disagree

[Adran]

19 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Remember, as unsexy as it is, Malifaux, stripped down to its most basic, skeletal structure, is a game of resource management. You are trying to turn your resources (SS, cards, wounds, actions, etc...) into VP more efficiently than your opponent.

It costs the same amount of actions and resources to perform an interact for a low cost model as it does for a high cost. Since the vast majority of High Cost models pay that cost for abilities that have little to do with scheming, it makes sense that in general you’re going to want the lower cost models scheming for you since spending 4 or 5 stones to get markers is vastly more efficient than spending 10 or 11 for the same amount of markers.

The issue of the keyword system then raises its head. Lower cost models are vastly more inefficient to hire out of keyword. Not only is there often a loss of synergy, but if you hire an OOK model who normally costs 4 and you pay 5 that’s what, 25% more expensive for you? In a game that is win or lost on the margins of efficiency that’s a hard pill to swallow.

I personally feel the next GG document will need to take the fact that very few crews will want to take scheme marker based schemes into account, or they are going to need to make a concerted effort to give every keyword something efficient at dropping markers, if they don’t have them already.

I think a lot of this is based on personal preference and the way you think. Especially the percentage cost of out of keyword. I see it as a tax on the crew as a whole. So I look at it as a percentage of my total spend, rather than the increase on that model alone. (That said I look at the model and decide if what it is going to offer is worth its x+1 cost.) . But if I need a good scheme runner I will happily pay the OOK cost for a cheap one if it does what I want.

With this outlook I'm as happy to by an OOK at 4 (+1) and an in keyword at 10 as I would be to buy the in keyword at 4 and the out of keyword at 10(+1). The truth is probably somewhere between the 2 views.

It is true that at a basic level it is cheaper to spend 4 stone to do the interact action than it is to spend 8 stones to do the interact action. to the extent

9 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

The Mechanical Rider would like to respectfully disagree

2 necropunks will do more scheming that 1 Mechanical rider at a cheaper cost. And if all you are looking at is the ability to drop scheme markers then you want the necropunks.  The Necropunks can drop 8 markers each over the course of the game. The Mechanical rider can drop 10. 

The mechanical rider is much more versatile than the necropunks, and is not just restricted to dropping markers to make its worth, so over all in the game you probably will get more value out of the mechanical rider, but that's because you are looking at other things as well. (The necropunks can also do more, than just drop schemes).

 

If you are playing someone that it trying to prevent you scoring by killing you, then the mechanical rider is probably a harder proposition (Althoiugh the necropunks are no easy push over), but if they are using scheme marker removal then its probably easier for them to wait until after the rider has gone and remove its markers than it is to wait until both necropunks have gone and remove all their markers.  

11 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I don't agree with this.  Most of the cost of scheming is the movement. You might spend 4-5 actions getting into position, but only one to interact.

Efficient movement is key for scheming. For these purposes, some 7-8 cost models like Bandersnarch, Widow Weaver, and Philip and the Nanny are much better scheme runners than cheaper models like Alps. Insidious Madness, the most expensive Nightmare minion, is the best scheme runner due to mobility and disengaging.

I agree that movement is an often hidden cost for scheming, but all models need to move. So a generic 4 stone model will have to move as much as a generic 8 stone model. You are slightly more likely to get good speed on a higher cost model, but its not a given.  (the 3ss Canine remains is the 4th fastest Resurectionist at only 1 move less than the dead rider, Reva and Shikome. This is an extreme example. What a good schemeing model wants is  the ability to drop a marker even if it starts the turn engaged and the ability to get them where it needs. This might be good mobility or it might be actions like the Mechanical riders that let you drop a marker in a certain area. Survivability is useful at helping it reach its job, but its not essential in every game.

[Nikodemus]

13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But if you're just using two 4-cost models, they're going to fold like tissue paper when your opponent tries to kill them.

If they get attacked, yes.

Some models, on some tables, can survive well enough to get things done in my experience. Molemen (4ss) for Marcus are fairly survivable with a Mutation upgrade (stealth + disguise). Admittedly that's one less survivability Mutation on a Cerberus or something, but it's worked for me. Tengu (4+1ss) have also done well when I've used them. Mv6, Flight, Interacts with a bonus action. Crooligans already mentioned. I'd be surprised if those were the only ones.

I mean yea they die if I let anything get a bead on them. And some counter models pose more problems than others (Manos, ugh). But in my experience, making use of terrain and playing suitably cage-y, I can keep my cheap runners alive till they've scored VP or two.

All that said I do like premium schemers. I often pay 8-11ss for my runner, or just use a master, and it has worked well.

____

On topic, this hasn't been my experience. And I say this as someone who's played a fair bit against Molly and Perdita I'm certainly less inclined to pick marker stuff if there's Perdita with an ook Executioner and whatnot, but that's true for all types of schemes and counterbuilding.

For reference I've been playing some 40-ish games using Misaki, Yan Lo and Marcus. Common to all crews is they're pretty much limited to Interacting to get their markers down, but they're quite mobile so they can get those few key Interacts where and when they need them. Harness Ley Line and Search the Ruins are common picks for me. Admittedly so are Breakthrough (non-Corner) and Power Ritual (preferably Corner or Flank).

[Mycellanious]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

 

2 necropunks will do more scheming that 1 Mechanical rider at a cheaper cost. And if all you are looking at is the ability to drop scheme markers then you want the necropunks.  The Necropunks can drop 8 markers each over the course of the game. The Mechanical rider can drop 10. 

Dont forget that on turns 3,4, and 5 the Mech Rider is going to reactivate a model, which may or may not be itself. This brings its scheme marker potential to a whopping 16 per game, equal to the Necropunks if all models are left alone.

Now, im am unlikely to need 16 scheme markers in a game (though recently I've been using the excess markers to bluff with great effect. Being able to spend the first two turns bluffing one scheme while still having plenty of actions left to complete my real schemes 3,4, and 5 thanks to reactivate is immemsely strong) but as you say its also about what the model brings when its not scheme. You pay the premium for the Mech Rider, because unlike Necropunks, she has the ability to score 1, or both schemes by herself while still impacting the rest of the board with shooting or reactivate. Unless my opponent brings strong anti runner tech, I have one model (Rider) doing schemes and 6-7 models doing the strat, or counter scheming, or killing. Being able to divide labor like this is very powerful.

Its also important to note how some schemes are a blend of muliple actions other than simply walk-interact. Treating all scheme runners as walk-interact bots does the special blend scheme "runners" a disservice. For example Dig Their Graves is a scheme that is a blend of killing-scheming. You need to be able to place a marker need an enemy, possibly while engaged, then still need to have enough ap to kill the model before it walks away. Necropunks cant do that, but the Mech Rider is uniqued situated, being able to bonus action place a scheme marker under an enemy at range or while engaged and still have 2 (or 4 with reactivate) actions left to kill that model is crazy good. (bonus points if you bought Diesel Engine for positives to dmg when she charges)

[Adran]

6 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

Dont forget that on turns 3,4, and 5 the Mech Rider is going to reactivate a model, which may or may not be itself. This brings its scheme marker potential to a whopping 16 per game, equal to the Necropunks if all models are left alone.

True, but to do that you will  need at least 5 suited 6+ cards over the course of a game, at a rate of 1 each turn (if you feel lucky you can avoid them in early turns and hope they show up in greater number in those later turns) . As a M2E Marcus player I can tell you how many hands don't contain any tomes when you need them to.  That's more resources than the 10 leaps will require.  

 

I do agree that the rider will be able to do more than a necropunk, and that reducing "scheme running" to just the ability to drop lots or markers is a simplification. But if you're talking in general terms, that is what most people refer to when they are "scheme running" and the easiest thing to compare.  

The Mech Rider is especially awesome in the dig Graves as it can literally do the whole think by itself if you want. The necropunk will be able to start engaged with a model, leap to a place where it can drop a model near enough to that model to score dig their graves, and then charge back in with an attack, its just not a very strong attack.

[Mycellanious]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

True, but to do that you will  need at least 5 suited 6+ cards over the course of a game, at a rate of 1 each turn (if you feel lucky you can avoid them in early turns and hope they show up in greater number in those later turns) . As a M2E Marcus player I can tell you how many hands don't contain any tomes when you need them to.  That's more resources than the 10 leaps will require.  

 

I do agree that the rider will be able to do more than a necropunk, and that reducing "scheme running" to just the ability to drop lots or markers is a simplification. But if you're talking in general terms, that is what most people refer to when they are "scheme running" and the easiest thing to compare.  

The Mech Rider is especially awesome in the dig Graves as it can literally do the whole think by itself if you want. The necropunk will be able to start engaged with a model, leap to a place where it can drop a model near enough to that model to score dig their graves, and then charge back in with an attack, its just not a very strong attack.

I think we are largely in aggreement except for specific details about Mech Rider. They probably dont mean much, but I feel compelled to explain my thoughts anyway if thats ok. 

1. You dont nees 5, 6+ of tomes because you can spend Fate Tokens to get tomes. On turns 3, 4, and 5 you spend 5 fate tokens to get 5 tomes, so all you need is any 6+ on those turns for the first bonus action scheme. (The timing is that you discard Tokens When Declaring Triggers, which happens before you Determine Outcome). Turn 2 is the turn you really need a 6T in hand. For the second scheme marker you def need another 6T, but you dont need to take the bonus action to drop a scheme marker, the Mech Rider can interact-Ride with Me- interact if you like for the exact same cost as a Necropunk's leap: any 6+. So in reality on turns 3,4,5 the Mech Rider has the exact same card cost as 2 Necropunks: any 2 6+'s

2. But in all likely hood, none of these models will be in a position to drop a scheme marker on turn 1, maybe not even on turn 2. The Mech Rider has more mobility* (barring cluttered terrain) than a Necropunk so it can get to where it needs to drop markers faster, but the trade off is that it can only be in one place on the board at a time so 2 Necropunks is probably better at scoring Outflank and possibly Power Ritual. 

3. I agree that when people talk about scheme running, they generally mean "running somewhere, then dropping a scheme marker." I argue that M3E specifically does a pretty ok job of complicating that with schemes like Deliver a Message, Take Prisoner, Hold Up Their Forces, Detonate the Charges, and Dig Their Graves and that its useful to begin expanding what it means to be a "scheme runner". I disagree that its too difficult to talk about comparing other aspects of models, in fact I think "mobility" in Malifaux is one of the vaguest stats a model has. In fact, we are already comparing other aspects of the Rider and the Necropunks. Which brings me to:

4. This is exactly my point. The Necropunk can try to score Dig, but its not very efficient at it and in all likelyhood cannot score it alone. Im not even sure 2 Necropunks could kill a significant model before it moves away or gets help. I think in Malifaux a lot of the expensive scheme runnees people feel "Meh" about are hyrbrid "runners" with unique comibations to help them accomplish specific schemes. The Rider has kill potential and scheme potential, as well as the potential to stack scheme markers in the same spot which makes it better at Dig, Leyline, and Detonate than 2 Necropunks, but 2 Necropunks are probably better at scoring Outflank and definately better at scoring Hold Up. 

[Adran]

57 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

I think we are largely in aggreement except for specific details about Mech Rider. They probably dont mean much, but I feel compelled to explain my thoughts anyway if thats ok. 

1. You dont nees 5, 6+ of tomes because you can spend Fate Tokens to get tomes. On turns 3, 4, and 5 you spend 5 fate tokens to get 5 tomes, so all you need is any 6+ on those turns for the first bonus action scheme. (The timing is that you discard Tokens When Declaring Triggers, which happens before you Determine Outcome). Turn 2 is the turn you really need a 6T in hand. For the second scheme marker you def need another 6T, but you dont need to take the bonus action to drop a scheme marker, the Mech Rider can interact-Ride with Me- interact if you like for the exact same cost as a Necropunk's leap: any 6+. So in reality on turns 3,4,5 the Mech Rider has the exact same card cost as 2 Necropunks: any 2 6+'s

 

I hadn't thought of using ride with me as the bonus action. But to get 16 dropped you can only use that once ( assuming they never get removed) , and so you need 19 tomes on the other action, and tokens only give 15.  So it is 4 tomes either from hand or flipped, which is more likely but still less likely than the leaping. 

 

[Mycellanious]

56 minutes ago, Adran said:

I hadn't thought of using ride with me as the bonus action. But to get 16 dropped you can only use that once ( assuming they never get removed) , and so you need 19 tomes on the other action, and tokens only give 15.  So it is 4 tomes either from hand or flipped, which is more likely but still less likely than the leaping. 

 

Turn 1: You interact, push, interact

Turn 2: Interact, push, interact

Turn 3: Walk, Interact, Revel, Push, Interact, walk

Turn 4: Interact, Walk, Revel, Interact,  Push, Interact

Turn 5: Walk, Interact, Revel, Walk, interact, try to Revel. 

So you get 14 confirmed interacts, up to 16 if you get Revel on the 5th turn or 3rd turn, and this only requires the tomes you generate naturally from Chasing Fate, plus 2 extra tomes on turns 3 or 5. Cheating tomes in turns 1 and 2 doesnt actually increase the number of interacts you get, just where you can place them. So all you really need for 16 interacts in 2 tomes on turns 3 and 5, which I agree is less reliable than the Necropunks, but only barely in a perfect world. And again, its unlike that you are going to want to place scheme markers on turn 1 (unless you play Foundry like me, or like to bluff also like me) and even less likely that you are going to actually need 16 individual scheme markers. In effect, I think the difference between 14 and 16 is kind of irrelevant. What isnt irrelevant is where you can place those markers, cuz for the Necropunks every scheme marker needs to be 4" apart whereas the Mech Rider can place a scheme marker right next to another scheme marker when she Revels. 

[Adran]

Turn 2 doesn't work. You can't  interact move interact because you're already by a scheme marker.   I do agree that you probably don't need that many markers in most games, but it was a way of comparing. 

[Mycellanious]

36 minutes ago, Adran said:

Turn 2 doesn't work. You can't  interact move interact because you're already by a scheme marker.   I do agree that you probably don't need that many markers in most games, but it was a way of comparing. 

Crud you are right, my b. so then you'd need the tome on turns 2 and 4 not 3 and 5.