Errata 2022- core rules

[50 SS Enforcer]

Anything that needs to be added for errata 2022 but non-faction specific goes here. I’ve seen people say OOK +2 and stuff. (I disagree with that, maybe +2 after two OOK models)

[ShinChan]

11 minutes ago, 50 SS Enforcer said:

Anything that needs to be added for errata 2022 but non-faction specific goes here. I’ve seen people say OOK +2 and stuff. (I disagree with that, maybe +2 after two OOK models)

I would like to see something like

• 3 OOK models -1ss to your list (like you play with 49ss instead of 50ss)
• 4 OOK models -2ss to your list
• 5+ OOK models -3ss to your list

[admiralvorkraft]

I don't know how to do it, but I feel like the various timing charts could be unified in a more intuitive way. It mostly works as is but there's room for improvement.

There's also maybe room for additional clarity on terrain - if I'm ignoring the blocking terrain based on my height am I ignoring cover generated by it's shadow? I've seen it played both ways.

My wish - though I understand this isn't happening - would be an adjustment to the way schemes. I hugely preferred how they worked in 2e, where I could score the full scheme in-game. It opened up so many lines of play that weren't based on attrition and made fragile tricky scheme-y crews (Elite, Performer, looking at you) way more viable. If the EoG point became available at the end of any turn after you scored the reveal point it would hugely improve the game imo. It would require rewriting some of the kill schemes so they didn't become too easy, but that's not a huge lift.

This is a GG wish, not an errata, but please bring back schemes and strats that encouraged interaction that wasn't fighting. 2e Cursed Object was amazing, lets see more of that.

EDIT: since you asked, I'd just cap cross-keyword hiring at 11ss and remove the tax.

[Azahul]

Are people actually finding super friend crews so prevalent that it needs to be shut down? Don't get me wrong, they clearly exist, but they don't seem to be aggressively dominant. The world series last year ended in a game between a super friends list and an all-Keyword crew from memory, and while the super friends won I don't treat the result of one game as indicative of that sort of build being necessarily problematic. If individual pieces are being taken too frequently then those pieces should be addressed rather than blanket core changes. Hitting OOK hiring as a concept cuts down on creativity in crew building I feel, it's only the "always taken, clearly too good" models that show up everywhere that are problematic. 

 

Personally, I would like to see the way Summons score streamlined dramatically. Currently they are a piecemeal of different effects stretched between the rulebook and Gaining Grounds document, with different durations and effects. I mean currently:

-A summoned model cannot Interact the turn it is summoned. 

-A summoned model does not count for friendly strats and schemes on the turn it is summoned.

-A summoned model cannot Interact with a Strategy marker ever.

 

Trying to explain why the three similar but subtly different effects to new players is just a pain. Personally I think they should be consolidated. Have Summoned models not count for friendly Strategies ever, and have that be the beginning and end of it. It cuts out the weird Corrupted Leylines loophole where summons are able to work perfectly normal on turns after they have been summoned. Let them Interact and score schemes the turn they are summoned. Yeah, it probably makes summoners a bit better at certain schemes, being able to summon a model forward and then have it run off to score Breakthrough for example, but locking them out of Strategies entirely feels like a decent compromise and it's so much cleaner.

[Maniacal_cackle]

An increase in OOK penalties also doesn't really address the problem.

In my experience, if you have a 'keyword only' tournament, it just strongly incentivises taking the busted keywords that have answers to everything in keyword.

[Da Git]

I think the current version of limiting summons is the best yet and see no reason to increase their power-level. If I were going to simplify it, I'd almost just have summons being completely ignored for friendly strats and schemes. And yes, I can hear the salt-induced rage now Better drink some more water!

Then if there are models that this completely invalidates, maybe add an action that lets the models drop a scheme marker if not engaged, kinda like the Akaname. Although I also really like the idea of the Enslaved Spirit's demise too. Maybe all summoned models could drop a scheme marker on death if they don't already...

 

As a crazy idea, that would be kind of interesting to playtest, make an alt format or even just try for for a GG season is every model gaining HtK... I think it'd be really interesting to see how the game changes with the little guys becoming much more viable.

I think there will be a lot of disagreement on that one

[Azahul]

51 minutes ago, Da Git said:

I think the current version of limiting summons is the best yet and see no reason to increase their power-level. If I were going to simplify it, I'd almost just have summons being completely ignored for friendly strats and schemes. And yes, I can hear the salt-induced rage now Better drink some more water!

Then if there are models that this completely invalidates, maybe add an action that lets the models drop a scheme marker if not engaged, kinda like the Akaname. Although I also really like the idea of the Enslaved Spirit's demise too. Maybe all summoned models could drop a scheme marker on death if they don't already...

 

As a crazy idea, that would be kind of interesting to playtest, make an alt format or even just try for for a GG season is every model gaining HtK... I think it'd be really interesting to see how the game changes with the little guys becoming much more viable.

I think there will be a lot of disagreement on that one

I'm totally on board with ignoring summons for strats and schemes. That doesn't mean they can't Interact, and if it means I don't need to separately track which models were summoned this turn for those purposes then the simplification will be great too. I don't know if that actually adds up to much more than just ignoring strats, but it may in future GG so good future proofing I guess.

[Da Git]

oops. I meant that summons may not interact as well as being ignored for friendly strats and schemes

[Azahul]

Hehe, I suspected that was what you were going for.

 

I think that's going a bit far myself. This is cutting summons out of one strategy entirely to making them a bit more efficient at the six-seven schemes that use scheme markers. I'm not sure it's any real increase in power. Feels like a sideways step to me.

 

I don't disagree that the summon nerf was necessary and care needs to be had in this quarter of the game, but I do think it's flat out boring if the only role summons are allowed to have is that of attrition/body blocking. At least with interacting they will hardly ever be contributing a full point with their AP, usually only half or less due to the conditions of most schemes.

[50 SS Enforcer]

@Da GitKinda makes celebrity on Seamus summons seem stupid if that goes through. 

[TeddyBear]

I think it's a bit utopian, but I'd like to see the swarming-crews being simplified, to be used more often in tournaments, within time limits.

[admiralvorkraft]

17 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

An increase in OOK penalties also doesn't really address the problem.

In my experience, if you have a 'keyword only' tournament, it just strongly incentivises taking the busted keywords that have answers to everything in keyword.

Limiting out of keyword hiring creates space for properly rebalancing/designing keywords to have explicit and unique strengths and weaknesses. It also, ideally, opens up more creative lines of play by loosening the efficiencies that currently shape the dominant style of play. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Limiting out of keyword hiring creates space for properly rebalancing/designing keywords to have explicit and unique strengths and weaknesses. It also, ideally, opens up more creative lines of play by loosening the efficiencies that currently shape the dominant style of play. 

My understanding of the playtesting process is they're already trying their best to properly balance/design keywords to be playable with unique strengths and weaknesses, so I'm not sure a rules change would help with that.

[GrumpyGrandpa]

I'd like to see them make Multi-masters a different mode. I don't see why they implemented it to begin with, and it only seems to cause balancing issues.

 

[admiralvorkraft]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

My understanding of the playtesting process is they're already trying their best to properly balance/design keywords to be playable with unique strengths and weaknesses, so I'm not sure a rules change would help with that.

Right, they seem to be trying for that, it's just not really possible with open hiring. If you make a keyword where the master is the carry and the rest of the keyword is less efficient (Performer, Red Chapel) then folks just hire the master and "good stuff."

If you design a keyword with certain weaknesses and open hiring then folks just hire the models that cover their weaknesses or skip the keyword models entirely. If you want to achieve the apparent design goal of keywords with unique strengths and weaknesses you do need to force people to accept the weaknesses in hiring.

[Maniacal_cackle]

37 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Right, they seem to be trying for that, it's just not really possible with open hiring. If you make a keyword where the master is the carry and the rest of the keyword is less efficient (Performer, Red Chapel) then folks just hire the master and "good stuff."

If you design a keyword with certain weaknesses and open hiring then folks just hire the models that cover their weaknesses or skip the keyword models entirely. If you want to achieve the apparent design goal of keywords with unique strengths and weaknesses you do need to force people to accept the weaknesses in hiring.

Well, one possible outcome of that is that you force people to hire in keyword.

Another possible outcome is you just force people to play the good keywords like Transmortis.

[Brilliance Laced Whiskey]

Perhaps a percentage cap is in order for OoK?

 

Since 50 SS is the standard limit for games, maybe make it so no more than 40% of the list can be out of keyword.  It allows an army to cover some weaknesses, but not straight up "betray", for a lack of better words, the theme of the list.

 

Some finer details would be needed, like what side would versitale models fall on if this approach was taken. 

 

I think combining a percentage cap with the +1 cost to OoK models could create an interesting way to balance lists that I cant imagine most people would have issues with.

 

 

[Vangerdahast]

OOK could be limited with a rule similar to mercenary rule in M2E: no more than 2 models OOK/Versatile (and +1 tax for OOK).

Would permit to cover weaknesses and avoid full OOK crews.

Could be a problem for some (weak) keywords?

 

[Morgan Vening]

30 minutes ago, Vangerdahast said:

OOK could be limited with a rule similar to mercenary rule in M2E: no more than 2 models OOK/Versatile (and +1 tax for OOK).

Would permit to cover weaknesses and avoid full OOK crews.

Could be a problem for some (weak) keywords?

Also same problem as the OOK Tax in general. Efficient high cost models are going to be taken over conditional low cost models except in the fringiest circumstances.

Same issue with percentage caps, except that might restrict a Master and Henchman add.

It's an issue with the power/SS curve on a lot of models in Mali, and it's more a general issue than just OOK, but a solution to OOK that makes it worse probably should be reconsidered, IMO.

[Azahul]

Yeah, none of these solutions really address the point @Maniacal_cackleis making that the harder you make it to hire models OOK, the more you're going to push players towards those Keywords that don't need them. The Masters who like to bring in OOK models to make up for weaknesses in their own Keywords will just fall by the wayside.

 

I also think that people are misidentifying the issue. Personally, I think OOK hires are really cool. They let a player flex their knowledge of the game, picking a Master for the pool, pulling in a couple of OOK models to react to the schemes and opponent's Master selection, creating unique and interesting crews that upset expectations of what that Master can do and making the most of Malifaux's really interesting pre-game.

 

The problem with OOK models is when some models are so efficient that they  become rote and boring choices. Your Silent Ones, your Rami LaCroixs, your Black Blood Shamans, etc. But the issue there is not with the hiring process, it is with a few models being a bit overtuned coupled with some Keyword choices not being good enough to compete. Trying to fix individual issues with a systemic change is problematic because you're going to do a lot of collateral damage in the process. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Another issue with keyword play is that cheap models are just not worth it.

I have made a few lists with 9 models that felt like the models were really worthwhile, but then I just lost the game to pass tokens. It is getting to the point where Ill look at things like cutting the totem so I can hire one more cheap model for a role. And if youre not hiring the cheap keyword models you probably need to reach out of keyword.

I dont think it can easily be fixed with errata though.

[Da Git]

Completely agree with what @Azahulsaid in that the focus should be on toning down the OP stuff rather than limiting crew selection and prevent new and interesting crews. I fondly remember taking Hannah in my Titania crews in M2E and using her bonus to teleport between Lairs and then charge! Or taking Hannah in a Tara crew and copying a Death Marshal's  Pine boxing an enemy master (good luck passing that Wp --> Wp duel to unbury when I have Wp8!), although that one was evil, M2E Tara was pants!.

[admiralvorkraft]

Full disclosure of my own preferences and biases; I hate Magic the Gathering. I really bounce off the part of this game that is knowing the meta and guessing what my opponent is bringing so that I can bring counters. If I'm playing seriously I bring in-keyword crews that have a game into whatever already - currently that's Obliteration but it could be Tricksy, Monk, Infamous, Savage, etc. If I'm playing for fun however, then I want to see the full expression of the character of a keyword because it's that great character expression that keeps me coming back to Malifaux over anything else. Keep that in mind if you want to read the Bad Take I've posted below.

In playing this game over two editions now I've read the argument over and over that open hiring allows for more creative crews and I've genuinely not seen it. What I've seen over and over is the meta agreeing on a few highly efficient models and taking them in every crew.

Now that's not to say it's everyone all the time. I know Maniacal comes up with weird interesting builds, and if it weren't for open hiring I wouldn't have figured out in m2e that Lucius and Santiago made for an extremely efficient master-deleting duo. Obviously there's neat stuff to uncover but that genuinely seems to be the exception that proves the rule. The rule being that if you played Guild in 2e you took Papa Loco and put him in a Point Box, and if you play Guild now you bring the horses and a Lawyer and that's just incredibly sad to me.

I think we all want more variety in what hits the field. My only argument is I don't think you can design for that without exerting more control over the hiring process.

Side note for Maniacal - I just got pasted last night by some Conductor Molly jank. All in keyword, and yet a build like nothing I've seen online. 

EDIT: I should clarify that anything like this is probably beyond the scope of an errata. Scoring changes, clarity on timing and cover, those are my actual desires as outlined above.

[Azahul]

6 hours ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Full disclosure of my own preferences and biases; I hate Magic the Gathering. I really bounce off the part of this game that is knowing the meta and guessing what my opponent is bringing so that I can bring counters. If I'm playing seriously I bring in-keyword crews that have a game into whatever already - currently that's Obliteration but it could be Tricksy, Monk, Infamous, Savage, etc. If I'm playing for fun however, then I want to see the full expression of the character of a keyword because it's that great character expression that keeps me coming back to Malifaux over anything else. Keep that in mind if you want to read the Bad Take I've posted below.

In playing this game over two editions now I've read the argument over and over that open hiring allows for more creative crews and I've genuinely not seen it. What I've seen over and over is the meta agreeing on a few highly efficient models and taking them in every crew.

Now that's not to say it's everyone all the time. I know Maniacal comes up with weird interesting builds, and if it weren't for open hiring I wouldn't have figured out in m2e that Lucius and Santiago made for an extremely efficient master-deleting duo. Obviously there's neat stuff to uncover but that genuinely seems to be the exception that proves the rule. The rule being that if you played Guild in 2e you took Papa Loco and put him in a Point Box, and if you play Guild now you bring the horses and a Lawyer and that's just incredibly sad to me.

I think we all want more variety in what hits the field. My only argument is I don't think you can design for that without exerting more control over the hiring process.

Side note for Maniacal - I just got pasted last night by some Conductor Molly jank. All in keyword, and yet a build like nothing I've seen online. 

EDIT: I should clarify that anything like this is probably beyond the scope of an errata. Scoring changes, clarity on timing and cover, those are my actual desires as outlined above.

To be fair, "metas" in the global, online, documented sense are almost never going to be creative. Groupthink rules and online discussions are a poor place to discuss  the relative merits of an in-Keyword Beater vs an OOK Beater in a Vendetta pool with the terrain collection particular to your specific LGS, for example. On top of that being creative in a competitive sense requires a particular type of personality, you have to both understand the game well and appreciate the small nuances to a degree that takes a lot more effort than selecting efficient choices and just learning them well. This is a big and complicated game, it's no small task to be creative... and yet we see it, and outside of the online Vassal meta I see it a lot locally, because when you step outside internet discussions there's actually a lot more space to be carried off on tangents and explore strange ideas due to the specific confluence of pool, terrain, and opponent. And it's the players who don't post online who will reliably try out weirder ideas in my experience, not being exposed to the prevailing wisdom is the easiest way to end up defying it. Those players might not be making the best decisions, many of them may not be very good players, but they are being creative nevertheless.

And even if that isn't enough, it also doesn't change the fact that systemic changes to make it harder build OOK aren't going to somehow fix that issue either. You would see a rise in the use of some Masters at the cost of others, even if the use of some popular OOK models declined. 

[Adran]

17 hours ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Now that's not to say it's everyone all the time. I know Maniacal comes up with weird interesting builds, and if it weren't for open hiring I wouldn't have figured out in m2e that Lucius and Santiago made for an extremely efficient master-deleting duo. Obviously there's neat stuff to uncover but that genuinely seems to be the exception that proves the rule. The rule being that if you played Guild in 2e you took Papa Loco and put him in a Point Box, and if you play Guild now you bring the horses and a Lawyer and that's just incredibly sad to me.

 

For what its worth, I think this isn't so much a rules issue as a players issue. 

I don't think Papa in a box was the strongest Sonnia list in M2E, and one of the best Sonnia players in the UK never bothered with that route (giving up on Sonia after a year or 2 largely because they really struggled with mobility for things like stake a claim, and if that ended up being the last round of an event they would lose, if it wasn't they would probably win ). What it was was a strong list, that was relatively easy to reach competency in.  You can read it on the internet, put it on the table, and within a play or 2 you are threatening with it. That wasn't really true with a lot of other lists, that might be stronger eventually, but needed 10-15 games to really get that sort of understanding.  

But I'm a big fan of the approach that you don't build your list until you know what you're doing, which is less popular, possibly because you can't just use the same power list over and over again if you actually need to adapt play styles, or probably because you get to playing quicker if you can do things like list building away from the table.

 So you are sort of left with a dilemma of making it easier for new people to play, or forcing more variety in games.  And whilst I like the more variety in games, I probably prefer the increase in player numbers the edition changes have caused, so I'm not sure what is the best answer.