Issues for possible Errata

[Maniacal_cackle]

There was a third floor wars podcast a while back about the... Nova tournament, I think?

In it, some of the players have a disagreement about a measuring issue and it turns into a bit of a scene.

They both calm down and realise the answer is clean play. People should be conscious of trying to measure reasonably, and erring on the side of caution (if I am sloppy with moving through severe terrain and then find myself just within attack distance afterwards, I'll tell my opponent and often count myself as out of range for that movement. If I wasn't being precise, I can't claim that being precisely 8" away is valid).

As a result, I find myself now being more careful with measuring everything (using proxy markers) in practice games. I was super sloppy last tournament, and am improving as I play more.

You could try to boil down the rules to something super simple, but I think that robs Malifaux of what makes it so special: all these niche interactions. I love that if I attack a butterfly jump model in severe terrain it still escapes me, unless I use a 2" engagement range for example. This came up in a recent game, where I specifically decided to use my Dead Rider against the First Mate once it landed in severe terrain, as it made its butterfly jump ineffective.

[marke83]

6 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Though I must admit that I doubt it would somehow break the balance of M3e if it was implemented without other errata. It would naturally affect models but the overall balance of M3e is nowhere near that level where this would somehow upset it one bit.

This. People are overestimating  the balance effect heavily here. First clue; think about how much there actually is severe terrain in your average gaming table? There is, but for my games blocking terrain has been much more common and works better for Malifaux anyway. The odd forest piece here and there won't shake the meta, even after the suggested change. Furthermore, the effect on normal movement isn't really even that big.

Titania and staggered might create funny situations, but then again it will be only different. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would like to hear why and how it would break the game exactly? 

Anyway, I think I'll try this vs Titania, and perhaps we add even another clause "movement reduction from severe terrain can never reduce the model's movement below 1"

[Maniacal_cackle]

25 minutes ago, marke83 said:

Titania and staggered might create funny situations, but then again it will be only different. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would like to hear why and how it would break the game exactly? 

My take above is that it doesn't necessarily break the game, it just makes it more... Boring. All this stuff to simplify the game to easier mechanics is quite a common thing in wargames. They often end up taking out all the really interesting niche mechanics (such as butterfly jump in severe terrain above) and make the game *too* streamlined IMO.

I'd rather have a game with depth personally.

[Morgan Vening]

13 hours ago, marke83 said:

This. People are overestimating  the balance effect heavily here. First clue; think about how much there actually is severe terrain in your average gaming table? There is, but for my games blocking terrain has been much more common and works better for Malifaux anyway. The odd forest piece here and there won't shake the meta, even after the suggested change. Furthermore, the effect on normal movement isn't really even that big.

Titania and staggered might create funny situations, but then again it will be only different. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would like to hear why and how it would break the game exactly? 

Anyway, I think I'll try this vs Titania, and perhaps we add even another clause "movement reduction from severe terrain can never reduce the model's movement below 1"

First, you're making an assumption based on your own tables. Blocking is more common on your tables. That's not going to be universal, and there's one table at my game store that's significantly Severe terrain. A good half the board is severe, though there are a lot of walkways that cross it, unless you get pushed, are blocked by models/created terrain, or need to move to a specific point. Just up and essentially saying "You're playing it wrong, play it my way." isn't going to sell people.

It's rare I don't play on a table without at least two significant sized Severe sections, often in places that'll likely matter, because not doing so kinda undercuts models with Unimpeded. Similarly, while it's not required that Concealing terrain also be Severe, it's usually the easiest way to do so.

And it's not about if they break the game, it's about which way they work being impacted by the game. Wyrd removed Paralyze for the game, because a model doing jack is unfun. If Staggered stacks with the penalty, you run the risk of doing that, and makes Staggered inherently more powerful. If it doesn't, then Staggered is inherently weaker. How it affects Titania and Basse might require that those crews be adjusted. 

I listed some other effects on my post at the bottom of the previous page. How are you going to rule on Scamper? Battle Tempo? What about 12 Cups of Coffee (which is only 1")? Scatter (3")? The aforementioned Butterfly Jump?

I get what you're suggesting. And I don't necessarily disagree with the basic principle. But a change of this type will affect many, MANY things, and that will require revisiting basically everything that has a Push ability or effect, and I think it's WAY too early to be thinking about M3.5, which is essentially what this change would require.

[Math Mathonwy]

13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

My take above is that it doesn't necessarily break the game, it just makes it more... Boring. All this stuff to simplify the game to easier mechanics is quite a common thing in wargames. They often end up taking out all the really interesting niche mechanics (such as butterfly jump in severe terrain above) and make the game *too* streamlined IMO.

I'd rather have a game with depth personally.

All wargames are simplifications. All rules are a compromise between interest/authenticity and gaming fun, basically.

Now, I can't comment on the specific example because I'm not quite sure how the proposed change would invalidate it (as far as I can tell, it would limit Butterfly Jump to 1" instead of 1.5" in Severe Terrain making it still an effective tactic for nullifying Butterfly Jump) but it is true that simplification always takes away something. The question is, is retaining it worth the cost in complexity.

I still remember the surprisingly large outcry when M2e came out and took away Lady Justice's shooting attack. The attack in question was quite bad (she is blind, after all!) and basically never used (she was my first Master in M1e and I never even once used it) but it was seen as an option and taking it out as an oversimplification and removing tactical options.

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

All wargames are simplifications. All rules are a compromise between interest/authenticity and gaming fun, basically.

Now, I can't comment on the specific example because I'm not quite sure how the proposed change would invalidate it (as far as I can tell, it would limit Butterfly Jump to 1" instead of 1.5" in Severe Terrain making it still an effective tactic for nullifying Butterfly Jump) but it is true that simplification always takes away something. The question is, is retaining it worth the cost in complexity.

The difference there is that severe terrain currently only stops butterfly jumping for 2" engagement ranges. This change would make it so butterfly jump wouldn't work for any attacks.

I agree some stuff needs to be simplified, but there comes a point where it is too much. Just look at the evolution of warhammer fantasy into sigmar.

[The Colour Red]

On 9/15/2019 at 2:21 PM, Thedeadclaw said:

If you're having a hard time killing Stitched Together you're fighting them wrong. It takes 2-3 hits with most damage spreads to kill them. They're not super tanky and if you shoot or bring armor piercing you can trade one model's activation to kill them. Raising their cost would not work since they're a middle-high end summonable, and they aren't good enough to compete with Insidious Madness at a better cost. They don't need to be fixed, they're one of Nightmare's only minions that has any real oomph to them and prevents an all enforcer board, and they're priced to be equally valuable with Bunraku in the puppet crew.

This whole thread feels a lot like when Magic: The Gathering players complain a lot about a new deck being too good; more often than not, it's not that the new thing is too good, it's just that you need to adjust your play style and expectations because you know that you're going to be playing against that new thing.

Just curious, but which 6 stone guild minion am I taking to reliably "trade one model's activation to kill them"?

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The difference there is that severe terrain currently only stops butterfly jumping for 2" engagement ranges. This change would make it so butterfly jump wouldn't work for any attacks.

I'm not sure how your getting to this point. Butterfly jump would let the model move 1" if it was in severe terrain, so it is still working. If what you mean is that 1 use of butterfly jump would then not let the model escape most engagements if the attacker was able to reach base contact then that's true. 

So yes it is something that has a power level change but I'm not sure that you would see that difference very often. It's just more likely models with butterfly jump will avoid severe. 

[Math Mathonwy]

58 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The difference there is that severe terrain currently only stops butterfly jumping for 2" engagement ranges. This change would make it so butterfly jump wouldn't work for any attacks.

It would still work for 0" Attacks? As well as all attacks that are performed from their maximum range? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly but it seems like this example isn't about complexity but just that you'd prefer Severe Terrain for Butterfly Jump to affect exactly 1" ranges when in base to base contact? Which seems oddly specific but as said, I very well might misunderstanding something.

[Adran]

6 minutes ago, The Colour Red said:

Just curious, but which 6 stone guild minion am I taking to reliably "trade one model's activation to kill them"?

Depending on exactly how you define reliably, exorcist, monster Hunter, pathfinder. riflemen all have a chance to kill them in 1 activation with a little assistance ( most will want 1 or 2 focus, or certain triggers, but can be set up to have the focus before hand.). 

[Maniacal_cackle]

11 minutes ago, The Colour Red said:

Just curious, but which 6 stone guild minion am I taking to reliably "trade one model's activation to kill them"?

Rabble Risers can do it somewhat consistently (haven't worked out the exact math), but they'll easily take 3 focused attacks in one activation. Of course, they'll end up with three poison for their trouble. I think that defense wise, handing out poison is the most egregious thing currently. Offensively, their Gamble Fate should be an attack.

9 minutes ago, Adran said:

If what you mean is that 1 use of butterfly jump would then not let the model escape most engagements if the attacker was able to reach base contact then that's true. 

Yeah, that is what I mean.

8 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

It would still work for 0" Attacks? As well as all attacks that are performed from their maximum range? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly but it seems like this example isn't about complexity but just that you'd prefer Severe Terrain for Butterfly Jump to affect exactly 1" ranges when in base to base contact? Which seems oddly specific but as said, I very well might misunderstanding something.

My point is changes like this slowly eliminate the niche scenarios.

I personally found it super exciting that I was able to bait the First Mate into severe terrain due to its leap, then was able to use the only 2" engagement range in my crew (Dead Rider) to hit him twice. I like back and forth counterplay, where you have to assemble the correct conditions to negate an enemy advantage. If you can do it with any 1" engagement range, that's fine... But it is an example of a niche scenario that loses a bit of the Malifaux Shine.

Of course, if you needed to make that change it'd probably be fine. But the measuring issue you've raised doesn't seem like the problem you've made it out to be, and it will take away dozens and dozens of interesting interactions.

[The Colour Red]

17 minutes ago, Adran said:

Depending on exactly how you define reliably, exorcist, monster Hunter, pathfinder. riflemen all have a chance to kill them in 1 activation with a little assistance ( most will want 1 or 2 focus, or certain triggers, but can be set up to have the focus before hand.). 

don't I need to push through 2 moderate/severe damage attacks against a model that has higher defense than my attack stat to do that? That sounds like a LOT more than "trading one model's activation" to do this. 2 focus is a whole second activation, and you still need cards and suits to pull this off (assuming your playing on planet bowling ball instead of the GGSeason0 terrain rules). 

 

If they were defense 4 without armor, I can see the counterplay of "just shoot them first"... but they are a "damage" minion that has better defense (and armor!) than ALL of those guild minions mentioned.

[The Colour Red]

25 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Rabble Risers can do it somewhat consistently (haven't worked out the exact math), but they'll easily take 3 focused attacks in one activation. Of course, they'll end up with three poison for their trouble. I think that defense wise, handing out poison is the most egregious thing currently. Offensively, their Gamble Fate should be an attack.

 

Rabble Risers are a good choice out of Guild. And they have to land all three attacks, start an extra two focus, and discard a card for flurry. Super easy.

Theres actually counterplay for the poison, it lets you use all those (gun symbol) attacks that get hurt by the terrain rules. Too bad the armor of 1 and super-elite defense make most of the incidental (gun symbol) shots in this SS bracket kinda worthless (looking at you, bone pile and onryo).

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, The Colour Red said:

Rabble Risers are a good choice out of Guild. And they have to land all three attacks, start an extra two focus, and discard a card for flurry. Super easy.

Well, my rabble risers frequently go up to 4-5 focus on turn one... And take two activations many turns. So it isn't like it is unreasonably difficult. The game is full of 'broken' things.

Though there is like a seven page thread on stitched together in the Neverborn forum (where ultimately I do think they need a nerf), so I won't cover it more here.

[The Colour Red]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, my rabble risers frequently go up to 4-5 focus on turn one... And take two activations many turns. So it isn't like it is unreasonably difficult. The game is full of 'broken' things.

Though there is like a seven page thread on stitched together in the Neverborn forum (where ultimately I do think they need a nerf), so I won't cover it more here.

Can you at least tell me how I get those rabble risers in guild?

[Maniacal_cackle]

22 minutes ago, The Colour Red said:

Can you at least tell me how I get those rabble risers in guild?

Oh, sorry, missed the part where you were looking for Guild stuff only. I don't know that faction so can't be helpful! 

[Adran]

45 minutes ago, The Colour Red said:

don't I need to push through 2 moderate/severe damage attacks against a model that has higher defense than my attack stat to do that? That sounds like a LOT more than "trading one model's activation" to do this. 

That depends on which one.  You're mixing up what was actually said to make your point, but in the interest of suggestions,  a monster Hunter can kill a stitched in an activation of it has a second monster Hunter that it gives focus to during 1 attack and then give it an action. ( and are in a crew that gives its models extra focus out of activation anyway). 

The exosist can install kill most stitched ( as most are summoned) on a crow trigger. And all of them are capable of doing it at enough range that the stitched can't kill them in an activation if they fail. ( You are right you should not expect an equal costed model to easily kill it in one activation with out it having significant help)

 

[Math Mathonwy]

11 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

My point is changes like this slowly eliminate the niche scenarios.

I personally found it super exciting that I was able to bait the First Mate into severe terrain due to its leap, then was able to use the only 2" engagement range in my crew (Dead Rider) to hit him twice. I like back and forth counterplay, where you have to assemble the correct conditions to negate an enemy advantage. If you can do it with any 1" engagement range, that's fine... But it is an example of a niche scenario that loses a bit of the Malifaux Shine.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that it would somehow lessen Malifaux. You would still have that exact same scenario albeit for 0" melee as opposed to 1" melee. So in essence the change is 2" immune, 1" and 0" affected to 2" and 1" immune, 0" affected. That's a shift, not taking stuff away. I'm not saying that you are wrong to love it being for those two ranges (when in BtB) but I hope that you agree that it is completely arbitrary, as such.

11 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Of course, if you needed to make that change it'd probably be fine. But the measuring issue you've raised doesn't seem like the problem you've made it out to be, and it will take away dozens and dozens of interesting interactions.

It would also add them since it isn't really taking rules away but rather changing how a rule works.

[Lechuzo_Loco]

Yesterday I came around to compare Blessed of December vs The First Mate. First mate is 9SS and Blessed is 8SS. For one stone more you get the following deal:

You loose:

• -1Df
• Built in leap suit
• -1 moderate and severe damage
• Onslaught trigger
• Hard to Wound
• Eat your fill
• Deadly Pursuit
• Grim Feast

But you gain:

• +1 Mv
• Built in crit strike trigger (resulting in a stronger damage track actually)
• Eat a scheme marker in 3" and draw a card
• Draw card when scheme marker removed (combined with above, draw 2 cards for an enemy scheme marker)
• Butterfly jump
• Deal out Distracted
• Slow trigger
• Stealth
• Draw card when cheated
• Gain fast when approached
• Sudden strike trigger
• Leap +3 stat
• Henchman
• Swampfiend synergies (while the Blessed has no December synergies, besides being pushed by Snow Storm's Ice Tornado)

I feel like a 1SS difference is just not enough here 🙂
 

If you could pick between those two, would you ever pick the Blessed to save that 1SS?

[Ming]

Also, Mate is a Henchman. We call him "Lady Justice turned to 11".

[FrostHunter]

27 minutes ago, Lechuzo_Loco said:

Yesterday I came around to compare Blessed of December vs The First Mate. First mate is 9SS and Blessed is 8SS. For one stone more you get the following deal:

...

I feel like a 1SS difference is just not enough here 🙂
 

If you could pick between those two, would you ever pick the Blessed to save that 1SS?

You have no way to choose between those two and that's all. And what about Archie? And what about Gwyneth Maddox? She doesn't have leap, great mobility etc. etc. and she is 9ss model, but she has her own great perks. Each faction has it's own weird and in some way even broken models with their own hmm hmm "destiny" and role to play, so we can compare in the same way two totems (they are free so why my Luna isn't so powerful as Lord Chompy or Huggy?) or any other models from different factions and argue which one is better or unfair by looking for the cost &perks comparison which in that case is unfair (). True - First Mate is power house, buw ook he is 10ss for Bayou and i would love to trade +3 leap stat or attack trigger to gains mask on leap so i would need in hand only 6+ card.

[Rufess]

54 minutes ago, Lechuzo_Loco said:

Yesterday I came around to compare Blessed of December vs The First Mate. First mate is 9SS and Blessed is 8SS. For one stone more you get the following deal:

...

I feel like a 1SS difference is just not enough here 🙂
 

If you could pick between those two, would you ever pick the Blessed to save that 1SS?

I believe you cannot just pick 2 models from game and directly comparing between them, even though the 2 models may share some of the abilities/actions and have similar role. The game was divided into 7(8) factions and each faction have its own collection of models and upgrades. Thus each faction has its strength, weakness, question and answer that are unique and different from others.

Like people love to compare Guild Rifleman and Outcast Scout and say Scout is much worse than Rifleman since lack of the sniper ability. They have, however, forgotten that Outcast has access to one of the best sniper in the game as a versatile model when they really need range firepower. The real role of Scout should be a remote schemer that can also provide range power.

Blessed and First Mate, same as the case above, cannot simply comparing only by themselves. You should also take account of the keyword hiring them as well as other models available within the faction, and the most important part, the diversity and strength of each faction. Zoraida maybe able to draw LoS from the First Mate, but she can never put a Mutation Upgrade on him.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Rufess

[Ogid]

16 minutes ago, Rufess said:

I believe you cannot just pick 2 models from game and directly comparing between them, even though the 2 models may share some of the abilities/actions and have similar role. The game was divided into 7(8) factions and each faction have its own collection of models and upgrades. Thus each faction has its strength, weakness, question and answer that are unique and different from others.

You can compare any 2 models and it's a good way to get a feel of what to expect of it; but without all those extra info to fill the gaps and put it in context that comparison it's not that useful and can easily devolve into "that should be OP". It's very good that the different factions have different strenghts.

Each faction has their top dogs, and that's totally fine as long as those doesn't eclipse all other models in the faction and the faction and keywords having those are performing ok. The first mate is a top dog for sure.

20 minutes ago, Rufess said:

Zoraida maybe able to draw LoS from the First Mate, but she can never put a Mutation Upgrade on him.

Exactly! And Rasputina with the Blessed can... can... well, nevermind.

[FrostHunter]

35 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Exactly! And Rasputina with the Blessed can... can... well, nevermind.

But Marcus can (yes, he can), and in some very minor way Snow Storm can, Ice Golem can.

[Lechuzo_Loco]

I am aware that the models can't really be directly compared. But I think that costs should be comparable in some way. And I think there should be some attractiveness to keyword models. Playing two Diesel Swarms instead of Blessed and the Ice Golem just isn't fun 🙂 .