Gaining Grounds Zero Updates Plant Expl., C. Idols, and 2 schemes

[Yore Huckleberry]

Many thanks to @Maniacal_cackle for spotting GG-0 and posting it.

TLDR:

Corrupted Idols now requires a controlling model to take the idol damage during an obey, rather than the model it's controlling, during an interact. I believe idol drops are also more centralized, rather than near the flank, especially in diagonal centerlines.

Plant Explosives the bombs must now be discarded on the enemy half of the table, so no obeying a target to just drop them.

Search the Ruins now requires two pieces of non-token terrain that is wholly on the opponent's half.

Vendetta now allows you to target an equal-cost model as well as higher cost.

[Morgan Vening]

16 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Corrupted Idols now requires a controlling model to take the idol damage during an obey, rather than the model it's controlling, during an interact. I believe idol drops are also more centralized, rather than near the flank, especially in diagonal centerlines.

Yup. It's an extra inch closer to the center on orthagonal deployment (9" from the edge as opposed to 8"), but on diagonal deployment, it's a little over 12.5".

There's two other big differences between the old and the new, that matter.

First, the markers are impassable and concealing. The latter is a nifty bonus, but the former will change how some players play. 

Second, it is substantially more difficult to make the token unable to drop. Though the way it's worded, it can be the cause of arguments.

[Yore Huckleberry]

5 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Yup. It's an extra inch closer to the center on orthagonal deployment (9" from the edge as opposed to 8"), but on diagonal deployment, it's a little over 12.5".

There's two other big differences between the old and the new, that matter.

First, the markers are impassable and concealing. The latter is a nifty bonus, but the former will change how some players play. 

Second, it is substantially more difficult to make the token unable to drop. Though the way it's worded, it can be the cause of arguments.

Aha! Yes, impassable idols tokens will stop the trick of standing on top of it with a large base model, and they can be used to stop charges now, I suppose.

What are you thinking will be arguments around the way that the dropping rules are worded?

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Aha! Yes, impassable idols tokens will stop the trick of standing on top of it with a large base model, and they can be used to stop charges now, I suppose.

What are you thinking will be arguments around the way that the dropping rules are worded?

Dropping impassable markers treats it as creating markers instead. Cannot overlap other markers, cannot be in base contact with models (which was already a rule about placing corrupted idols anyway, so that just simplifies it).

[Morgan Vening]

8 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Aha! Yes, impassable idols tokens will stop the trick of standing on top of it with a large base model, and they can be used to stop charges now, I suppose.

What are you thinking will be arguments around the way that the dropping rules are worded?

Strategy Markers
"When playing in a Gaining Grounds event, if a Strategy Marker would be Dropped by a Strategy and cannot be Dropped in the indicated location, the player with Initiative must instead Drop the Strategy Marker as close as possible to the indicated position and in a way so that it both players or a judge agree has no additional beneficial effects for either player. If the Marker cannot be Dropped in such a way, it is not Dropped."

Obviously, you really need to be a "That F'n Guy", but I can see some people arguing that in the following example, where the pink X is the original point on the centreline, and the square is an impassable object, that the Red Player could argue that the Blue Player placing it where the pink dot is, is "additionally beneficial" to the Blue Player.

Heck, the Blue Player could argue same, if his model only had 1W, and there were multiple Red models in the area that'd be able to flick it back. Either because it's beneficial to the Red Player in the long term, or just that it's beneficial to the Blue Player in the short term, cause it's if "either player" benefits.

I understand that a lot of players aren't like that, but putting judgment calls like this in, can make those people that are, more unbearable.

[TheJoyInGaming]

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Dropping impassable markers treats it as creating markers instead. Cannot overlap other markers, cannot be in base contact with models (which was already a rule about placing corrupted idols anyway, so that just simplifies it).

This is mostly true. Previously, you could still have the initial Marker Drop B2B with a model after Initiative was determined, but you couldn’t Drop it B2B with a model when placing it with an Interact action. Now you cannot do either.

I like the change as now it requires more of an AP investment since you cannot camp a spot waiting for an Idol to be placed.

[Paddywhack]

11 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Obviously, you really need to be a "That F'n Guy"

Yeah, you would. I'm not sure you can avoid 'That F'n guy' though. They always find ways to argue. To me, that is the next closest spot and doesn't appear to 'additionally' benefit the Blue player. Yes, they are in a better position, but would have been if it dropped on the X as originally intended as well. It is the closest point to the original. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

@Morgan Vening, I agree to a degree, but if the players can't agree, the idol doesn't drop at all. Though that itself can be abused.

 

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

2 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

Yeah, you would. I'm not sure you can avoid 'That F'n guy' though. They always find ways to argue. To me, that is the next closest spot and doesn't appear to 'additionally' benefit the Blue player. Yes, they are in a better position, but would have been if it dropped on the X as originally intended as well. It is the closest point to the original. 

I think @Morgan Vening’s diagram could also be a great cautionary tale for TO’s that if they’re including idols in their events, they might want to spot check maps and clear the idol spawn points of terrain. It’s an extra step but pretty quick.

And I’d really hope players can simply abide by the sportsmanship rule and not disagree just to prevent a point. I think if I were a TO, I’d probably take two reasonable choices and make them flip for the position at that point and then reshuffle their flip cards or something.

[solkan]

30 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I think @Morgan Vening’s diagram could also be a great cautionary tale for TO’s that if they’re including idols in their events, they might want to spot check maps and clear the idol spawn points of terrain. It’s an extra step but pretty quick.

And I’d really hope players can simply abide by the sportsmanship rule and not disagree just to prevent a point. I think if I were a TO, I’d probably take two reasonable choices and make them flip for the position at that point and then reshuffle their flip cards or something.

Random aside:  There are too many deck manipulation effects in Malifaux.  Even "each of you flip a card and then reshuffle your decks" means that if they've just stacked their decks, you've just thrown away actions.  And then there's Lucid Dreaming.  That's what really makes it unsafe in general, even though this is something that you're adjudicating right after the initiative flip.

If you're going to have the players flip cards to decide something, it has to be a fresh deck.  Probably best to just have a deck handy for the judge to flip.  Point to one of the players, say "Call it, red or black" before flipping probably be the snazziest way to do it, since the cards are split evenly that way.  😎

[Ogid]

14 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Strategy Markers
"When playing in a Gaining Grounds event, if a Strategy Marker would be Dropped by a Strategy and cannot be Dropped in the indicated location, the player with Initiative must instead Drop the Strategy Marker as close as possible to the indicated position and in a way so that it both players or a judge agree has no additional beneficial effects for either player. If the Marker cannot be Dropped in such a way, it is not Dropped."

OMG! That's a terrible ruling imo, something that relies in a subjetive opinion should be avoided like the plague. Plus this could make the issue of players trying to block the spawn points even worse. Now they only have to block the spot with 1 model/marker and then be TFG to disagree about that any other point is a fair place for it...

[Yore Huckleberry]

4 hours ago, solkan said:

Random aside:  There are too many deck manipulation effects in Malifaux.  Even "each of you flip a card and then reshuffle your decks" means that if they've just stacked their decks, you've just thrown away actions.  And then there's Lucid Dreaming.  That's what really makes it unsafe in general, even though this is something that you're adjudicating right after the initiative flip.

If you're going to have the players flip cards to decide something, it has to be a fresh deck.  Probably best to just have a deck handy for the judge to flip.  Point to one of the players, say "Call it, red or black" before flipping probably be the snazziest way to do it, since the cards are split evenly that way.  😎

That makes perfect sense as a general rule!

I think the timing should be fine with Idol markers, as no deck-stacking turn effects will have taken place at that point apart from the initiative flip itself ... but it does still provide info that at least the reveal card is not in the opponent's hand, and while each player does it, the particular cards that flip could be more relevant for one than the other, so a fresh deck IS even cleaner.

[solkan]

8 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

That makes perfect sense as a general rule!

I think the timing should be fine with Idol markers, as no deck-stacking turn effects will have taken place at that point apart from the initiative flip itself ... but it does still provide info that at least the reveal card is not in the opponent's hand, and while each player does it, the particular cards that flip could be more relevant for one than the other, so a fresh deck IS even cleaner.

Remember that Lucid Dreaming is physically removing cards from the player's deck.  In the middle of a game, they can actually have a statistical advantage over the other player.  So after the first turn, after the first turn it's already possible for one player to have a better deck compared to the other player.  If it's a rules dispute in the middle of a game, you do not want to let a Dreamer player flip for something off that deck.

Even with just card draw and stoning for cards, the two players decks aren't equal.  If players knew they'd be flipping off over something, and they had low in their hand, they now have a better than average chance of winning the flip off.  

In M2E I probably did it a few times without a second thought but there's all the rules like The Old Ways where you can't know for sure whether the player's just set their discard pile to a specific card before you came over.  It's just not safe to touch the players' decks any more, even if it's just at the Idols stage.

[Maniacal_cackle]

14 hours ago, Ogid said:

OMG! That's a terrible ruling imo, something that relies in a subjetive opinion should be avoided like the plague. Plus this could make the issue of players trying to block the spawn points even worse. Now they only have to block the spot with 1 model/marker and then be TFG to disagree about that any other point is a fair place for it...

I think these sorts of games by their nature just have to be very subjective. Trying to make a rule for every situation is enormously clunky, when really the rule of 'good sportmanship' pretty much covers all those situations anyway.

[Ogid]

27 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think these sorts of games by their nature just have to be very subjective. Trying to make a rule for every situation is enormously clunky, when really the rule of 'good sportmanship' pretty much covers all those situations anyway.

With rules the best thing is always plan for the worst (savage rules lawyering) and make a system as solid and unbreakable as possible (and even in that case you'll find scenarios like the dude in the rules forum arguin that permabury Bad Juju for the rest of the game is perfectly balanced and clearly intended). Especially when creating a rule not involving subjetive judgements is not even that hard. For example in idols: if the marker cannot be dropped, drop it in the closest legal position still in the middle line.

The fact that the good sportmanship is something that needs to be explicitly stated and it's not taken for granted; it's giving a hint that trusting too much in the good sportmaship isn't a good idea anyway.

[Maniacal_cackle]

@Ogid, what happens if there are two legal positions, which one does it drop in? Also does that mean that someone like Rasputina can flood the centreline and shift the drop position in their favour? How far can you move it - could it end up ten inches away?

Trying to make a rule for every possibility just leads to more rules lawyering IMO.

Using a good sportsmanship guideline encourages people to be sporting.

Also, there is a simple solution to 'that guy.' Don't play with them. Even at a tournament level, if someone is just miserable to play against, the TO can give them a friendly chat, then a warning, then just ban them from future events.

Dnd is a good example. You just have someone who can judge the outcome.

 

[Ogid]

26 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

@Ogid, what happens if there are two legal positions, which one does it drop in? Also does that mean that someone like Rasputina can flood the centreline and shift the drop position in their favour? How far can you move it - could it end up ten inches away?

The above ruling needs some extra twists, add to it to determine randomly the position if there 2 legal spots at the exact same distance and you got it.

About the Rasputina... well, it's a Master using a lots of Actions and suits to saturate the board with Pilars instead of blasting the hell out of the other crew, she would need to block the spots in both directions and a model removing just one pilar would stop her shenanigan... it's not a problem, in fact that player will probably lose the game if he overcomit to that.

About the distance, the rule right now doesn't impose any limit in the distance as long as both players agree; this is the same but without needing agreements or promoting arguments.

32 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Trying to make a rule for every possibility just leads to more rules lawyering IMO.

Using a good sportsmanship guideline encourages people to be sporting.

Also, there is a simple solution to 'that guy.' Don't play with them. Even at a tournament level, if someone is just miserable to play against, the TO can give them a friendly chat, then a warning, then just ban them from future events.

Dnd is a good example. You just have someone who can judge the outcome.

I do think most players will be reasonable and sporting, but not everyone can stay neutral in the middle of a game and there are a minority of players that will try to actively bend rules into scenarios good only for them. Sportmaship and non-abusable rules aren't exclusive concepts. I play to have fun and won't try to use dirty tricks or abuse rules (nor the people I usually play with). But I also want solid rules to be able to stop any player trying to rules lawyer in the bad sense in his tracks.

There is a difference between players using their resources in creative ways (like generating a lot of pilars/pianos to block the spawn points), something that adds depth and fun to the game; and create a rule that allow a player to say "dropping that marker 0,2'' to the right is unfavorable for me, so it doesn't drop (and there is no way to convince him because he knows that he lost the initiative flip and there is no way he can reach it before the other player/his model is about to get slaughtered)"

As said above: Rule for the worst and expect the best.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think rule for the worst,and expect the best is a good guideline for board games and things like Magic the Gathering.

Every wargame I have played that tries to rule for every contingency becomes a very simple game (because you have to massively simplify terrain to make it possible to rule for every possibility).

I think Malifaux's complexity naturally invites subjectivitiy. Also note that the rule is if the players OR a judge agree. So if a judge looks at a situation and makes a ruling, the marker drops in that spot no matter how much one player argues.

This could create uncertainty, but that is again easily addressed by clean play - state the consequences of placing models near idol spawn points so everyone is on the same page.

[Ogid]

I think an skirmish game needs rules as clear as board games or CCGs. It's not a roleplaying game or a cooperative game where the gamemaster and the players are kind of in the same team and can colaborate to create a nice story; it's a 1v1 game where each player is trying his best to win, more or less sportmanship involved it's like a game of chess. Clear rules is the only way to give both players a fair game and be able to plan in advance the movements.

In fact good and solid rules enable a complex game/terrain rules while still keeping it playable. Trying to make the game more complex with subjetive rules will only make it more cumbersome and promote arguments over each movement instead of promoting fast and clean play. Imagine the worst case scenario, each table at a tournament needing a judge each turn to drop the strategy marker.

[Zebo]

14 hours ago, Ogid said:

create a rule that allow a player to say "dropping that marker 0,2'' to the right is unfavorable for me, so it doesn't drop (and there is no way to convince him because he knows that he lost the initiative flip and there is no way he can reach it before the other player/his model is about to get slaughtered)"

 

14 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

So if a judge looks at a situation and makes a ruling, the marker drops in that spot no matter how much one player argues

This.

I doubt you find players doing this in casual games, because they would run out of opponents soon.

And in tournaments there should be a judge avoiding players to bend/break the rules in their favor. Always remembering that the rule says "no additional beneficial effects", so the judges have rules to keep their ground.

[Ogid]

My point is a judge shouldn't be needed to drop an strategy marker, ever. If both players are reasonable, there shouldn't be too many problems with this iteration, I can give you that. But there is no need to put the players in that situation in the first place.

There is a reason rules like cover say:

Quote

Models within a terrain’s Shadow (even partially) have Cover against any  Actions that can draw one or more sight lines through that terrain

instead of

Quote

Models that both player consider near enough of a piece of terrain have Cover against any  Actions that can draw one or more sight lines through that terrain

Or the Accuracy rules are:

Quote

• Tied: The damage flip will suffer .
• 1 to 5: The damage flip will suffer a .
• 6 to 10: The damage flip won’t have a modifier for accuracy.
• 11+: The damage flip will receive a .

Instead of

Quote

• Tied: The damage flip will suffer .
• a small difference according to both players: The damage flip will suffer a .
• a good difference according to both players: The damage flip won’t have a modifier for accuracy.
• The defender just got owned!... according to both players: The damage flip will receive a .

[ShinChan]

21 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

@Ogid, what happens if there are two legal positions, which one does it drop in? Also does that mean that someone like Rasputina can flood the centreline and shift the drop position in their favour? How far can you move it - could it end up ten inches away?

Trying to make a rule for every possibility just leads to more rules lawyering IMO.

Using a good sportsmanship guideline encourages people to be sporting.

Also, there is a simple solution to 'that guy.' Don't play with them. Even at a tournament level, if someone is just miserable to play against, the TO can give them a friendly chat, then a warning, then just ban them from future events.

Dnd is a good example. You just have someone who can judge the outcome.

 

I think that's the key. If I face "that F guy" and he does something like this, I'll pick up my miniatures, concede and wait for my next game. It wouldn't be the first time I do it, even during a tournament that I've traveled and paid in order to participate.

If someone wants to behave like that when playing with tiny plastic toys, it's not a game that I'm going to enjoy, so I'll pass. I play to have a good time (and I'm really competitive), but I don't tolerate the lack of sportsmanship and well behave, specially in one of my favorite hobbies.

[Ogid]

This is a hobby, the ultimate goal is have fun so I can understand your stance. But for me giving up each time I have the bad luck to face TFG isn't the solution. Sportmanship is like manners, they make all easier and there is no point in not using them; but sportmaship isn't there to make game run smoother, rules are. A game has a very solid rules when 2 cutthroat players who really want to win can play a game with no arguments. That's the kind of rules I want and this game isn't that complex to have to rely in subjective judgements.

I also play to have fun and I'm sporting; but If I face someone who isn't, I want the rules backing me up, not making things harder because they rely in players not being dicks.

[ShinChan]

On 11/3/2019 at 12:41 PM, Ogid said:

This is a hobby, the ultimate goal is have fun so I can understand your stance. But for me giving up each time I have the bad luck to face TFG isn't the solution. Sportmanship is like manners, they make all easier and there is no point in not using them; but sportmaship isn't there to make game run smoother, rules are. A game has a very solid rules when 2 cutthroat players who really want to win can play a game with no arguments. That's the kind of rules I want and this game isn't that complex to have to rely in subjective judgements.

I also play to have fun and I'm sporting; but If I face someone who isn't, I want the rules backing me up, not making things harder because they rely in players not being dicks.

I agree that the rules must back us up, but the game is not simple. Even chess is not simple and you play in a determine scenario and with the same list.

For me, it's about making TFG realize that if he keeps playing like that, better start playing alone, because nobody else will play with/against him.

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, ShinChan said:

I agree that the rules must back us up, but the game is not simple. Even chess is not simple and you play in a determine scenario and with the same list.

For me, it's about making TFG realize that if he keeps playing like that, better start playing alone, because nobody else will play with/against him.

There are different concepts here. When I say the game is not that complicated I refer to the rules itself, not how easy is to master or be competitive at it. The rules of chess for example are very easy to learn, anyone may learn how to play chess much faster than how to play Malifaux. But being a competitve chess player or master it; that's a whole different story. But Chess wouldn't be the game without a clear rules where the players wouldn't know how a piece is going to move. It's the same with Malifaux, the rules must be clear enough that there is no doubt how everything works and how a scheme marker is going to drop.

About TFG; yes, I rather not playing with these, and I'd definitely dodge these kind of players in a casual enviroment. But rules should work the same if you have the nicest guy at the other side of the table or if TFG is the one there.