Issues for possible Errata

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Not a very good argument in my opinion, given the existence of Dead Man’s Hand.

Dead Man's Hand was an edition change (a once in 5 years event, I think), not errata (I think they update the game twice a year?). So there are different issues.

Of course that leaves some players out of luck if they bought them recently, but that's inevitable. IMO Wyrd does a pretty good job of minimising that (they even created DMH to keep the models semi playable).

But with a fresh edition, we just recruited a whole bunch of players who own one crew each. I hope that Wyrd will only tinker with those crews if necessary or in small ways (increasing Archie's cost for example is pretty small compared to taking his mask off leap for example). It'd be quite gutting if tons of crews got updated and some players were left feeling they wasted their time getting into the hobby.

Personally I'm now spread over four crews so am a bit insulated myself, but would still suck to have models hit so hard I wouldn't want to play them anymore. Sometimes necessary, of course, but overall I hope for a conservative errata approach from Wyrd. Gaining grounds is already going to do so much to shift the meta every year anyway.

[Nikodemus]

22 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

(I think they update the game twice a year?).

Did in 2e.

I don't actually recall any M3e statement regarding Wyrd's stance on errata, though I may have simply missed or forgotten said statement. So technically we don't know how (if at all) 3e will be handled. That said I believe The Other Side was somewhat recently errata'd so I feel it's safe to say that Wyrd is still a pro-errata company and I remain hopeful they'll handle it with deliberation and grace

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Nikodemus said:

Did in 2e.

I don't actually recall any M3e statement regarding Wyrd's stance on errata, though I may have simply missed or forgotten said statement. So technically we don't know how (if at all) 3e will be handled. That said I believe The Other Side was somewhat recently errata'd so I feel it's safe to say that Wyrd is still a pro-errata company and I remain hopeful they'll handle it with deliberation and grace

Wyrd's track record so far seems pretty good to me.

Gaining grounds zero was extremely good errata IMO.

[marke83]

I finally gotta write about this; I would really like if severe terrain mv reduction would be -2 mv static. It would apply if a model moves through/touches severe terrain at any point during the move. It could even be -3 for models mv 7 and above if  universal -2 seems is too little.

The current system is  inaccurate and interrupting the flow of the game. (Also a relic from older wargames, and doesn't belong in modern games imo) In addition, most models move 5", which causes half-inch issues or even worse when part of the movement is in normal terrain. How do you measure those situations? I mean sure you CAN, but it really is an extra hassle especially during tournament games.

We're planning to do local-errata about this, but I'm sure people will disagree because somehow change is always bad, even if there's no downsides. -2 (or -3 if you wanna nitpick) simulates difficult terrain well enough and brings accuracy and flow to the game.

[solkan]

39 minutes ago, marke83 said:

I finally gotta write about this; I would really like if severe terrain mv reduction would be -2 mv static. It would apply if a model moves through/touches severe terrain at any point during the move. It could even be -3 for models mv 7 and above if  universal -2 seems is too little.

The current system is  inaccurate and interrupting the flow of the game. (Also a relic from older wargames, and doesn't belong in modern games imo) In addition, most models move 5", which causes half-inch issues or even worse when part of the movement is in normal terrain. How do you measure those situations? I mean sure you CAN, but it really is an extra hassle especially during tournament games.

We're planning to do local-errata about this, but I'm sure people will disagree because somehow change is always bad, even if there's no downsides. -2 (or -3 if you wanna nitpick) simulates difficult terrain well enough and brings accuracy and flow to the game.

There are two major issues with your proposed proposed improvement:

1.  A Mv 5 model moves 3 inches and then encounters severe terrain.

2.  The impact of severe terrain increases with the model's base size, not its movement rate.

Of course, you appear to have decided that you're right already, so...  🤷‍♀️

[kross1]

Butterfly jump needs a cost, be it a trigger with a suit, a discard or something...

[Clement]

27 minutes ago, solkan said:

There are two major issues with your proposed proposed improvement:

1.  A Mv 5 model moves 3 inches and then encounters severe terrain.

2.  The impact of severe terrain increases with the model's base size, not its movement rate.

Of course, you appear to have decided that you're right already, so...  🤷‍♀️

1) it stops immediately.  The same is true if said model moves 4 inches, then encounters severe terrain.  (It's the guild ball model for severe terrain)

2) kind of both really.  The larger the base, the more distance the model spends in the terrain, but the larger the movement rate, the more inches "lost" per AP.

[marke83]

Yes I have decided. I have talked and thought about this a lot, and  it's not perfect either if you want to nitpick. It is indeed the guild ball model, but it works very well. It might be that I haven't considered everything (and probably I haven't), but those mentioned issues have come up. 

The amount of lost inches can be even 1", if that'd work better for malifaux. That's not set in stone. But the current system isn't very entertaining in my opinion. The cases where you move even inches seem rare. Many times terrain ends up being 3,65" inches away or similar.. players just shrug and compromise. Gun's ranges, melee ranges,  buffs, debuffs, spell ranges - very rarely any compromises there, at least when it comes to tournaments.

I personally am fine with everything, and a very casual player actually, but I also think certain tightness and clarity helps everyone. I think M3E has achieved that, but I also think severe terrain movement is needlessly complicated in practice to an otherwise well flowing game.

The only good thing I have come up with is moving the model accurately in severe terrain is indeed a difficult experience - akin to moving in a rough terrain in real life. Not sure the roleplaying aspect has a lot of weight though.

[solkan]

2 hours ago, Clement said:

1) it stops immediately.  The same is true if said model moves 4 inches, then encounters severe terrain.  (It's the guild ball model for severe terrain)

So how many models in Guildball create severe terrain that they can hide in, or position during the game?

I assume that the Guildball mechanics probably work fine where the focus of the game is getting across the table the other goal, and your objective isn't just inside a severe terrain piece.

2 hours ago, Clement said:

2) kind of both really.  The larger the base, the more distance the model spends in the terrain, but the larger the movement rate, the more inches "lost" per AP.

It's a progressive movement tax: The faster models complain about paying more than the slower models, in spite of the fact that the slower models spend more actions crossing the terrain.   

A model with a 7" move that spends its entire move in severe terrain will move 3.5".  A model with a 4" move doing the same moves 2".  The faster model "loses" more distance per action, and it also has move distance per action to move, so it still moves through with less repetitions.

What does the -2" move modifier do instead?  The fast model moves faster.  Again, that's probably great in a game where the movement rates are from 4" all the way up to 10", and to score you need to cross the table as fast as possible.

 

[Rufess]

4 hours ago, Clement said:

1) it stops immediately.  The same is true if said model moves 4 inches, then encounters severe terrain.

Isn't it move 0.5" into the terrain?

[Clement]

4 hours ago, solkan said:

So how many models in Guildball create severe terrain that they can hide in, or position during the game?

I assume that the Guildball mechanics probably work fine where the focus of the game is getting across the table the other goal, and your objective isn't just inside a severe terrain piece.

It's a progressive movement tax: The faster models complain about paying more than the slower models, in spite of the fact that the slower models spend more actions crossing the terrain.   

A model with a 7" move that spends its entire move in severe terrain will move 3.5".  A model with a 4" move doing the same moves 2".  The faster model "loses" more distance per action, and it also has move distance per action to move, so it still moves through with less repetitions.

What does the -2" move modifier do instead?  The fast model moves faster.  Again, that's probably great in a game where the movement rates are from 4" all the way up to 10", and to score you need to cross the table as fast as possible.

 

Surprisingly many there have auras that mess with movement of passers by.  More importantly though, the game is built and balanced for it.  It's not the kind of change I'd lob in via errata.  Maybe shelve it till 4e along with time clocks.

 

4 hours ago, Rufess said:

Isn't it move 0.5" into the terrain?

Under current rules yes.  I was referencing how Guild Ball handles 

[Adran]

The guildball terrain rules are quicker and easier to use, but it is a rule set that is designed to have very little terrain on the table (3-7 pieces if I remember, of which probably only 1 or 2 that will slow movement).

Applying that rule to malifaux, where you are expected to have lots more terrain, is not as clean in my eyes. Also Guildball has 1 movement action a turn, so its not as harsh. And yes they can spend "actions" to move further, but its still all in that one action. Malifaux has no "action consolidation" like sprint, so a model that was focused on moving is going to have this penalty on each action I suppose? In malifaux you are more likely to walk in multiple severe areas in a turn, where I will spend many guildball games never entering the one patch of rough ground because I have no need to. Unless you're planning on bringing back (2) actions and creating Sprint as a general action while you're errataing movement.

 

Saying its hard to measure a 1/2 inch is a little strange to me. I guess you are a player that largely uses widgets rather than a tape measure, if you're having that problem.

I probably spend more time trying to work out movements to avoid generating parting blows in Guildball than I do trying to work out how to severe reductions in Malifaux. That might just be me, but I use a tape measure for the bulk of my movements and just calculate it on the fly.

 

You're welcome to play the game how you like, but this seems like it will be an errata that makes several unexpected changes in crew game play.

 

 

 

[marke83]

54 minutes ago, Adran said:

Saying its hard to measure a 1/2 inch is a little strange to me. I guess you are a player that largely uses widgets rather than a tape measure, if you're having that problem.

You seemed to have missed the point here. The distance between model and severe terrain is almost never divided evenly, even in half-inches. (btw 0,5" IS annoying enough).  At least when I do positioning, I want to do it in a way that benefits me and the model in question - in relation to enemy positioning. As  said, gun/spell/melee ranges are static, so I very much care whether my Rusty Alyce is 12" away from the enemy or not.

This means I'm not actively seeking to place my models in even distances from severe terrain - rather I want to find a good position and the severe terrain just happens to be X" away. Now, if I need to move to severe terrain, I'm also often not trying to even out the inches to handle severe terrain better, but trying to find a good position.

Say a model with mv 5 is 3,4" away from severe terrain. You have 3,4" normal movement, when the base touches the terrain, then the rest is 0,8". That doesn't even get your base (approx 1,25" for 30mm) completely to terrain, so next action/activation you have similar problems if you want to move out. 

[Jarkko]

What's there to add? Marke83 is right

 

Because Malifaux does often have more terrain that reduces movement, the static reduction is more accurate. Simpler = more accurate when you are working with eyesight and hand dexterity. (And by extention, tape measure is about the worst tool to measure movement in a game like this.)

[Rufess]

22 minutes ago, marke83 said:

Say a model with mv 5 is 3,4" away from severe terrain. You have 3,4" normal movement, when the base touches the terrain, then the rest is 0,8". That doesn't even get your base (approx 1,25" for 30mm) completely to terrain, so next action/activation you have similar problems if you want to move out. 

So this is a nerf to certain models because they can on longer push an enemy into a Severe Hazardous terrain if it is too far away.

[santaclaws01]

15 minutes ago, Jarkko said:

What's there to add? Marke83 is right

He's not though. For one it's an across the board nerf to entering into severe terrain, which just reduces tactical options. Reducing movement by half isn't inaccurate, it just means people have to spend slightly more effort in figuring out where you can move to.

[marke83]

4 minutes ago, Rufess said:

So this is a nerf to certain models because they can on longer push an enemy into a Severe Hazardous terrain if it is too far away.

The model just stops at the edge and takes the effects. Nerf, true, but not very big.

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, marke83 said:

The model just stops at the edge and takes the effects. Nerf, true, but not very big.

This would require changing the rules so that being edge to edge with terrain counts as being in terrain, which pretty much breaks impassable terrain.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Jarkko said:

What's there to add? Marke83 is right

 

Because Malifaux does often have more terrain that reduces movement, the static reduction is more accurate. Simpler = more accurate when you are working with eyesight and hand dexterity. (And by extention, tape measure is about the worst tool to measure movement in a game like this.)

I would say more practical not more accurate.

Surely the worst tool to measure with, is one which can't do the required measuring.

 

1 hour ago, marke83 said:

You seemed to have missed the point here. The distance between model and severe terrain is almost never divided evenly, even in half-inches. (btw 0,5" IS annoying enough).  At least when I do positioning, I want to do it in a way that benefits me and the model in question - in relation to enemy positioning. As  said, gun/spell/melee ranges are static, so I very much care whether my Rusty Alyce is 12" away from the enemy or not.

This means I'm not actively seeking to place my models in even distances from severe terrain - rather I want to find a good position and the severe terrain just happens to be X" away. Now, if I need to move to severe terrain, I'm also often not trying to even out the inches to handle severe terrain better, but trying to find a good position.

Say a model with mv 5 is 3,4" away from severe terrain. You have 3,4" normal movement, when the base touches the terrain, then the rest is 0,8". That doesn't even get your base (approx 1,25" for 30mm) completely to terrain, so next action/activation you have similar problems if you want to move out. 

But you have these measuring problems still occurring when you measure to move around objects in the game. If the end of a wall is 3.4" away from the back of the model, you still need to measure 3.4" and 1.6", so whilst your suggestion would make it a less common occurance, its not like its removing those measurement requirements from the game.

And if you are trying to find good positions, its even easier. You're not working out how far you can go, you're just checking can you reach that position, so not very much harder under the current rules than your proposed. (It is harder, but most of the time the ideal position is not at the extreme of your range, so any inaccuracies you might have don't matter)

[Rufess]

11 minutes ago, marke83 said:

The model just stops at the edge and takes the effects. Nerf, true, but not very big.

It is not correct. And even if this statement was correct...

44 minutes ago, marke83 said:

Say a model with mv 5 is 3,4" away from severe terrain. You have 3,4" normal movement, when the base touches the terrain, then the rest is 0,8". That doesn't even get your base (approx 1,25" for 30mm) completely to terrain, so next action/activation you have similar problems if you want to move out. 

Then your example here is worse than current rule. Starting Activation in base contact with the Severe terrain means that model would suffer Mv -2 penalty. Thus the model can at most move away from the terrain 3"(+ 5" if it double walk), while under the current rule the model can move away 3.4".

Edited January 13, 2020 by Rufess

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, Rufess said:

Then your example here is worse than current rule. Starting Activation in base contact with the Severe terrain means that model would suffer Mv -2 penalty. Thus the model can at most move away from the terrain 3"(+ 5" if it double walk), while under the current rule the model can move away 3.4".

I think you've missed the intent of the suggestion, its not that models will be made better or worse by it, the purpose is to make measuring easier. 

[marke83]

2 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

This would require changing the rules so that being edge to edge with terrain counts as being in terrain, which pretty much breaks impassable terrain.

Or the model could just take the effects in case of severe, but stay out (in base contact with the terrain piece, but not considered in)? Or the rule could be written only about severe? Both? Adding a clause if a model comes in base contact with severe it takes any effects from that piece?

[Rufess]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

I think you've missed the intent of the suggestion, its not that models will be made better or worse by it, the purpose is to make measuring easier. 

As said above, this is not just a simple rule change but also affect the game plan and power lever of several models, or even keywords. I am not sure if the measuring is such a serious issue that need changed in the first errata of this edition with the risk of breaking balance of certain models.

[Math Mathonwy]

I've seen extremely often, even in tournaments, that people don't measure model movement in severe terrain even remotely correctly. Especially when the model is leaving severe terrain (as then you should be measuring from the back of the base when you normally always measure from the front). And in general it's very frustrating when people measure shooting ranges to millimeter accuracy and then move models with nowhere near as much accuracy. A tape measure hovering four inches over the model is such a different thing compared to a proper measuring widget placed into base contact with the mini.

Now, that said, I do agree that errata isn't the correct way to go about implementing a change such as this one but I would very, very much welcome it when M3.5 hits in 2022  

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.

[Morgan Vening]

My main issues with implementation of a Severe Terrain penalty, is twofold.

Staggered is a thing. Does a model with Mv4 and Staggered just become unable to move?

Also, how are titch pushes going to work? Because pushes are affected by Severe too. Does it get to completely screw Scamper, or does it make it significantly better?

It might seem like a simple solution, but there are so many exceptions that need to be considered, I don't think it's workable, and even if it is, like @Rufess said, it might require the complete rejiggering of a crapload of models costs and/or abilities, on a scale that'd essentially bring us back to Beta.