Jump to content

Rule changes I'd like to see in GG3.


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Removing "through" wouldn't fix the rule Hazardous rules. If you cut out resolving an ability it reads like so: "when a model moves through ... Hazardous Terrain". Removing through would make it: "when a model moves ... Hazardous Terrain". I think changing it to "when a model moves through, ends a move in base contact with, or resolves an Action while in base contact with or while in Hazardous Terrain." would fix the issue you specify.

The passage would read:

After a model moves through or resolves one of its Actions while in base contact with or while in Hazardous Terrain, it suffers the effects of the Hazardous Terrain after the current Action or Ability is resolved (to a maximum of once per Action or Ability)

So it would be "After a model moves.... while in base contact with or while in hazardous terrain"

So it works if you remove that word I think.

38 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Ah... Gotcha. There aren't very many Hazardous, Impassible are there?  So not a huge problem, more like an annoyance. 

 

 

ES added them to the game, so the rules didn't quite work for them. So they tried to errata it but forgot to delete a word IMO. And now people also play impassable hazardous with objects on the table, so it can happen for any crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The passage would read:

After a model moves through or resolves one of its Actions while in base contact with or while in Hazardous Terrain, it suffers the effects of the Hazardous Terrain after the current Action or Ability is resolved (to a maximum of once per Action or Ability)

So it would be "After a model moves.... while in base contact with or while in hazardous terrain"

So it works if you remove that word I think.

ES added them to the game, so the rules didn't quite work for them. So they tried to errata it but forgot to delete a word IMO. And now people also play impassable hazardous with objects on the table, so it can happen for any crew.

Looks wonky with multiple “or” chaining together multiple clauses. You are essentially trying to say “After a model moves while in base contact with or moves while in or resolves an action while in base contact with or resolves an action while in Hazardous”, right? Makes more sense than I originally thought, but I think something cleaner would be better since you only need one mis-interpreted “or” by one player to cause a conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Looks wonky with multiple “or” chaining together multiple clauses. You are essentially trying to say “After a model moves while in base contact with or moves while in or resolves an action while in base contact with or resolves an action while in Hazardous”, right? Makes more sense than I originally thought, but I think something cleaner would be better since you only need one mis-interpreted “or” by one player to cause a conflict.

Sure, I wouldn't mind if they just turned it into a bullet point list for example. I just want the rules effect to be changed to be consistent so that impassable hazardous works like it is intended.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind if the falling damage rules were replaced by 

Quote

that model falls and suffers falling damage equal to half the amount the distance it fell in inches exceeds its size (rounded up).

or

Quote

that model falls and could suffer falling damage.  If the distance Allen exceeds the size of the model, it suffers damage equal to [half of?] the amount the distance exceeds its size [(rounded up)].

depending on how severe falling should be.

But, either way, it would accomplish the goals of:

1.  People would just shut up about the "move down a fraction of an inch, then fall down to avoid any damage at all" mechanic.  😬

2.  The damage avoidance feels more like the model is hanging on to the ledge and letting itself down.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, solkan said:

I wouldn't mind if the falling damage rules were replaced by 

or

depending on how severe falling should be.

But, either way, it would accomplish the goals of:

1.  People would just shut up about the "move down a fraction of an inch, then fall down to avoid any damage at all" mechanic.  😬

2.  The damage avoidance feels more like the model is hanging on to the ledge and letting itself down.

 

I agree with clearing up the first point. I’d like for something like the second option you posed, but with less math… maybe 1 dmg and Injured+X equal to Sz. I’d like the phrase “the bigger they are, the harder they fall” to have some appearance in the fall rules, but pure damage doesn’t seem right for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see attacker and defender evened up a bit.

Deployment zones are chosen at almost the end of the process.

This means that attacker can build their list to one deployment zone, but defender has to build their list to four deployment zones.

Of course in casual play we all just ignore the deployment rules and decide zones at the start anyway, but in competitive play it makes a big difference to actually follow the rules.

This would of course affect phrasing of strategies, etc.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I'd like to see attacker and defender evened up a bit.

Deployment zones are chosen at almost the end of the process.

This means that attacker can build their list to one deployment zone, but defender has to build their list to four deployment zones.

Of course in casual play we all just ignore the deployment rules and decide zones at the start anyway, but in competitive play it makes a big difference to actually follow the rules.

This would of course affect phrasing of strategies, etc.

I still stand by my "Defender eliminates one of the two sets of DZ's, Attacker chooses which of the DZ's in the remaining set to start in" proposal.

Allows the Defender to remove the one DZ that's the absolute worst for them (or alternately, not allow the Attacker the best).

There's nothing worse than there being one clearly sucky DZ, and knowing that you're going to end up there if you lose one flip. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that is more an issue with board setup than with the rules. While I do support asymmetrical boards, no starting zone should be much worse than another. If one zone gives free movement to most of the board and the other is fenced in behind a river, then the board setup is bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

...no starting zone should be much worse than another...

If one zone gives free movement to most of the board and the other is fenced in behind a river, then the board setup is bad.

Strongly disagree - it is the the reason for having DZ selection as a decision point, to make it a consideration you can use to your advantage and/or need to design a crew around. If a potential DZ has a load of Severe terrain in front of it, you should be bringing Unimpeded and Place tricks, particularly as Defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DuBlanck I disagree that DZ should have a major impact on your your crew selection. The board as a whole should definitely impact both master choice and crew selection, but the DZ shouldn't be so skewed that one crew can be bogged down, while the other has free reign. I'm fine with having to alter your list a bit to accommodate the risk of a bad DZ, but it shouldn't be a major decision for crew selection. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree Deployment Zone should have some impact, but perhaps not huge impact... It barely takes any impact to warp the game... Take this map for example:

image.thumb.png.510d6b80d1d2027d83b296b0c3c043fa.png

 

At first glance, this board looks incredibly symmetrical.

But in a Seamus vs Nekima game, I got a huge advantage by being attacker and setting up a 'nest' for Seamus to safely sit in so Nekima couldn't attack him until turn 3.

As another example on this same map on standard deployment for Symbols, Hoffman 2 getting to be attacker gives him the bottom deployment zone, so he can lock three symbols at the start of turn 1.

So deployment zone choice can have a big impact, even on a reasonably symmetrical board like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

I'd say that is more an issue with board setup than with the rules. While I do support asymmetrical boards, no starting zone should be much worse than another. If one zone gives free movement to most of the board and the other is fenced in behind a river, then the board setup is bad. 

It doesn't have to be an extreme, for it to impact the table significantly. And setting up a board so that it's no worse than another is fine if you're ONLY playing North/South. But when you have to take into account 8 general DZ's (with each having two distinct shapes), and making sure none are massively advantaged/disadvantaged, it's a lot more cumbersome than I'd like, than placing terrain on a table, making it look thematic, fixing obvious problems, and getting into the meat of the game.

I find rivers to be most problematic. If they're not just straight down the middle of the board, then it can definitely put the screws to the Defender.

image.png.f882c3b551102d710d84ceed3279c64f.png

First one is fine for the most part. Second one sucks if you're not playing East/West, especially if there's a centreline strategy. Third one sucks if you're not playing NW/SE, moreso if you're forced to play SW/NE but still sucking if you're playing N/S or E/W.

But I don't want to play with only a dividing line river, but with "Your opponent gets four DZ's to screw you with", asymmetrical rivers are not something I want to put on the table.

Other terrains can also be impactful, especially if you're doing a town square on a part of the board that is NOT the table center, or want to use a slightly larger than normal terrain piece (I have a church and a swamp bar that are both around 6x9, look awesome, but can definitely be a problem if you don't factor in all 8 ways you might get hosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Morgan Vening I personally loathe rivers, they're a cool piece of terrain, but you need to have a river that can easily be divided into separate pieces of terrain. It's not that bad if a central river has 4-5 crossing points, but if you only have 2 (as I've seen several times) for a river that separates the board, you can invalidate a lot of crew options. 

One problem, that I didn't notice as much in m2e, is that a lot of models now interact much more directly with terrain, so any big piece becomes a potential problem. 

Generally I care less about the theme of a table than about how well it works mechanically. 

I remember playing on a swamp board, it looked great, but ~40 of the board was severe terrain. It caused a huge imbalance between what crews people had. Some had no response to that board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

I remember playing on a swamp board, it looked great, but ~40 of the board was severe terrain. It caused a huge imbalance between what crews people had. Some had no response to that board. 

This is one of those things that really depends on your play group. If you have lots of players with only a limited number of crews, then this sort of thing can be bad because some people almost lose before they even pick what they have. If you have a play group where most players have several crew choices, this sort of thing can be really good and interesting and make people try things they don't normally try. I'm a big fan of playing on "warped" boards like this, in part because I have a large collection, and even if I can't play well on it with my collection, I enjoy the challenge of trying to make do with what I have. (One of my Favourite Seamus games in M2E was the one I played on a table with 0 blocking terrain items (I defined the terrain as I would normally, but I was playing in an event with fixed master so had to use Seamus). I lost, but I got to try a lot of different things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In casual games, we figure out what people want to play and then design the board to give us a balanced game.

So the deployment rules don't really matter for casual play. We just setup a balanced board and generally choose to deploy on whichever side of the table our minis are.

In tournament play, though, you generally follow the actual rules.

You place and define terrain before you know what people are playing, and to some degree you assume that people will bring crews that can handle diverse terrain.

At this level of play (when you're actually following the rules and boards fit the GG guidelines but are not designed to 'go easy' on casual players), I think deployment zone choice starts to matter.

For casual play it doesn't matter because most people don't even follow the terrain and deployment rules I think.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Or perhaps even more relevant for tournaments - we only have so much terrain.

The tables get what the tables get xD

That's what I often see😊 I can also understand that when you need to fill up 10+ tables, the terrain isn't going to be ideal on every table. 

@adran I don't mind a warped or skewed table in a non-tournament setting. I find it both fun and interesting. But when your end result can be decided by a bad table, or the need to both own and know how to play, certain masters in a faction its an issue. At least in my book.

I know it's a major drain on a TO having to get and store such huge amounts of terrain (although 3D printers help with the price these days). I'm just not sure if adding another decision to the pregame of an already time consuming game is the best way to go. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

@adran I don't mind a warped or skewed table in a non-tournament setting. I find it both fun and interesting. But when your end result can be decided by a bad table, or the need to both own and know how to play, certain masters in a faction its an issue. At least in my book.

It may well be my outlook, but I go to Malifaux tournaments to be able to play a bunch of Malifaux games. So if I lose because I'm stuck on Table X for round Y, then so be it. I still got my game which is why I was there. 

If the tournament result matters then it should be a case that you need to be a good player to get the win, and that, to my mind, means that you know how to adapt to face the situation the table throws at you.  I don't get to as many events as I used to, but I would much rather go to an event that had a wide range of tables, than one that just had copies of the same table "to make it fair".

(I'm also a player that does literally make up his crew at the side of the table, rather than one who does any pre-building of it, so adapting to the table is my normal mindset. If you are more of a set list type of player, then you are much more going to object to "skewed tables".  So I stick with my "it depends on your playgroup" if it is an issue or not. 

 

The game I referred to was on a fairly common looking Wooded table that was fine for 99% of malifaux games. It didn't help that I was using a master I wasn't good with against one of the top players in the country at the time (who did offer to redefine terrain when they saw who I was playing, but I refused. ), I was probably going to lose it regardless of the terrain. It was run as a "beginners" event because you were playing fixed master (and fixed pool if I remember rightly) so the T.O. already removed part of the game rules to allow players to adapt in an attempt to make it "fairer" for new players. We both had fun, and there were memorable moments in the game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information