Jump to content

Errata 2022- core rules


50 SS Enforcer

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Adran said:

Its hard to say for certain that Wyrd work like that (after all wasn't Sommer already errata'd twice this edition?) It may just be that in their working out which models were most in needing changes, Yasanori wasn't in the top 30 (or how ever many actually got them).  I don't know the wyrd criteria, but if I had 2 equally bad models that needed a buff, and I could only do one, I would naturally go for the one that had been that bad the whole edition rather than one that was nerfed to that bad part way through. 

I don't want to get into debating terms and tossing them about, but... why do I have to pick one?  What says that we can only buff one model?   If I had two models that needed buffs I'd buff two models.  Adding a line to the Errata "Yasunori: Chasing Advantage reverted to every two cards (round down)" wouldn't cost them a buff to a different model.  They would then have time to see and evaluate how a minor buff impacted his play rate, and if he needed another.

This is an artificially created limitation that is actually holding back the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of small changes.  Because we aren't making small changes, we can't see if the small changes make a model more viable (or if larger buffs are needed).  Then when Wyrd does make a small change the result is anger because people think that if the model still sucks Wyrd isn't going to revisit it ever, and this was its "one chance to be good." 

I've praised small changes like Barbaros that were incrimental improvements.  I think Barbaros was an excellent example of pushing a model from maybe a "4" to a "6" with a few small changes.  Hitting a few 3s and 2s with small changes like that to potentially make them 4s and 5s is good because then we can evalaute if they still need more buffs, or if a small change was all that was necessary.  He wasn't the worst model in Outcasts (in fact he was playable), he's not even our worst versatile model, he's not even our worst versatile model we had that was 7+ cost.  But low impact tweaks are easier to make than huge sweeping changes, and can give an indication if you do need the huge sweeping changes that require lots of playtesting. 
 

Quote

 

I would hope that as the edition becomes older, there will be less need to nerf models, and therefore there would be a greater number of models that got a buff. I know we've talked about it before, but I am still of the opinion if you have some over performing models, and some under performing models, you will have a greater positive effect on the game as a whole by reducing the over performing models than you will by improving the under performing (Because until the over performing models are brought down, they will just be taken regardless of how many correctly performing models there are).

There is a lot of interesting space that hiring restrictions can allow, I just would be hesitant to use that as a route to nerf models. Taking your Ivan example, if I had an Ivan list that I purchased that was quite full of OOK that the nerf banned, then I may no longer have a legal list to play. That can produce bad feeling, where as an Ivan title that was bought out with those restrictions would be fine, in that it didn't invalidate what I do now. With the current nerfs you could play a similar list to how you did before the nerfs, it just doesn't do it as well.  And to me, able to play a list, it just be bad is better than no longer able to play a list.

 

I've seen that opinion, and I'm not positive I share it.  First, I think to even make it requires a baseline of "underperforming" and "overperforming" across the game.  I'm reminded of 2E Sandeep, where not only was he "overperforming" but also he was the Arcanist's only viable master.  So he was overperforming relative to Arcanists, but was he overperforming relative to the game's power level (well, yes).  But was nerfing him with no buffs going to improve people's play experience by basically returning Arcanists to "the deleted faction"? 

We have to get every crew to around the baselines for nerfs to be the most important thing.  If ever crew is "pretty good" and then something is overperforming (say a new guild minion makes it way too easy to hand out burning) reverting it to baseline increases diversity.  But if everything is scattered, with very few viable crews, then nerfing the FOTM just gives you a new FOTM.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but a certain company initialed GW is pretty infamous for that endless treadmill, and their game hasn't really gotten more balanced for all that they've chosen to run on it.  Sometimes nerfing can even result in no master in the faction being in minimum viability.

M3E is not nearly as bad off as M2E in that regard but we still need a mix of nerfs and buffs to increase diversity, not just pure nerfs.  Pure nerfs often just push players from "#1 master" to "#2 master" but if we nerf #1 master, and give small buffs to underperforming models for masters #4/5/6 at the same time, suddenly there isn't as obvious of a #2 and diversity increases.  

And again, small buffs to underperforming models are easier to test and implement and far lower risk than massive reworks.  It's pretty easy to go "hey, are we nerfing Nekima?  Lets toss in a buff to Bandersnatch and Razorspine Rattlers"  Then we actually get players shifting from one master to several, increased diversity, rather than just walking one stair down the stairwell and picking up the crew on that stair. 

P.S.  I don't know if restricting crew was "the solution" to English Ivan.  He reliably did 10 damage a turn, summoned a 7/8 stone model, and removed an enemy scheme marker.  That's the sort of 15-20 stone swing per activation that's very dangerous, especially when your totem is a legitimate model that can Thoon an enemy in shadow markers.  I will say that second master Ivan was infuriating in a completely different way, like oh gee, yeah, that's horseshit.

But for a much better example, Seamus spends a lot of time OOK in Ressers.  Maybe thematically he's exactly the sort of asshole who creates hiring restrictions when you take him in a crew?  Maybe he can't be hired into a crew with other living models?  It's an interesting way to make it not so easy to take him OOK or to take OOK stuff with him, without directly nerfing his in-keyword crew (who could probably use a few buffs anyway).  I'm not familiar enough with Ressers to know if that's workable or if he has a living in-keyword model that would need to be adjusted along with that, but it's the sort of idea that could be played with. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

but... why do I have to pick one?  What says that we can only buff one model? 

Because as they've said, erratas are limited in scope. Everything that needs buffed and everything that needs nerfed isn't going to all be done at once. This isn't a video game where a change is just a quick line of code that can be easily revised.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Because as they've said, erratas are limited in scope. Everything that needs buffed and everything that needs nerfed isn't going to all be done at once. This isn't a video game where a change is just a quick line of code that can be easily revised.

You're right, it's not a video game.  Video games are rigid and slow.  To effect a change in a video game you actually need to change the code.  Here you can go into Illustrator and change a text box or number, plot the image, and then push the image to the crew builder app.  It's significantly easier and safer than changing a computer game, you can't change Yasunori and have the Malifaux Raptor lose the ability to attack because humans are evaluating this, and humans are far smarter than computers.   One of the things I like about tabletop games is the far higher degree of flexibility they have than computer games. 

Any constraint on the number of models they can change is purely artificial.  They could change 50 models at once if they wanted to, with no risk of bugs or code crashes or any of the issues video games would encounter.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

They could change 50 models at once if they wanted to, with no risk of bugs or code crashes or any of the issues video games would encounter.

The issue isn't something getting messed up, it's losing player engagement. Most people playing tabletop games don't want their rules updated very frequently if at all. They also don't want to have to constantly be getting new cards every time one of their models is changed. Malifaux is a physical game, and every change needs physical media to reflect it. Changes being too frequent leads to a whole host of issues.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The issue isn't something getting messed up, it's losing player engagement. Most people playing tabletop games don't want their rules updated very frequently if at all. They also don't want to have to constantly be getting new cards every time one of their models is changed. Malifaux is a physical game, and every change needs physical media to reflect it. Changes being too frequent leads to a whole host of issues.

Player engagement is higher when players know the models they find thematically interesting and fun to paint will be on the tabletop.  Most people playing tabletop games want the models they paint to be both useful pieces on the tabletop as well as pretty to look at.  Most people are fine writing over a number or two with a sharpie or using printouts of cards or the digital app, and physical cards are available Print on Demand for the small minority that demand professionally printed cards (again using those same illustrator files, and available to order off DriveThru Cards the same day it issues for that tiny minority).  Malifaux's rules are maintained digitally and we live in the 21st century, we don't need to act like it's the 1970s and we're grognards in our Mom's basement.  Changes being infrequent leads to a whole host of issues.  A company that's responsive to customers and quickly addresses problems creates a dynamic meta with lots of diversity in masters you face leads to higher player engagement and higher player satisfaction as well as attracting new players who can see tournaments and see it's true that you can "buy what you want and it's viable" giving Malifaux a strong sales contrast to more grognardy wargames. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The issue isn't something getting messed up, it's losing player engagement. Most people playing tabletop games don't want their rules updated very frequently if at all. They also don't want to have to constantly be getting new cards every time one of their models is changed. Malifaux is a physical game, and every change needs physical media to reflect it. Changes being too frequent leads to a whole host of issues.

To build on this...

Most players probably play 10-20 games in a year.

An extremely engaged player will play 50 games in a year...

That's a bit different from a digital game where a player might play 50 games in a week.

So the pace of change being different makes sense too. When I first started,  I'd be annoyed if I spent a bunch of time painting up a crew and they were errata-ed 3 times before I finished.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

To build on this...

Most players probably play 10-20 games in a year.

An extremely engaged player will play 50 games in a year...

That's a bit different from a digital game where a player might play 50 games in a week.

So the pace of change being different makes sense too. When I first started,  I'd be annoyed if I spent a bunch of time painting up a crew and they were errata-ed 3 times before I finished.

Would you be if they buffed your new crew and made them better?  I tend to doubt it.  I've never seen someone react negatively when a model gets buffed.  I suppose out there there's some person who wants their models to be bad and is atrociously offended when they're good, but I've never met them.  For people I know who play once a week they have to look at the app to remember the exact details of their models most of the time anyway.  If one goes from Df 4->5 do you think they'd even notice?  Odds are pretty good they wouldn't.  And the "bad stuff" is that they play the old version of the model that isn't very good - which is what they're doing anyway.

So to me this seems entirely theoretical.  It's all hypotheticals.  I'll tell you what I have seen - when they buffed order initiates my local arcanist player pulled out his Marcus and tried lists with 2-3 order initiates.  The list wasn't that amazing, but the order initiate was sure a damn sight stronger than it was pre-buff, and he liked that.  Now I've seen him consider playing Marcus more - which was entirely inspired by a buff. 

So against this hypothetical my real world experience is people love buffs.  People love when the new masters have made crews like Perdita viable.  People love pulling out their models and trying something because "hey it changed, lets see what it feels like".  Real, actual people.  There's been some complaints because of the sheer scale of Malifaux Burns changes, but again Df 4->5 is the exact opposite of those sorts of sweeping changes that practically involve relearning matchups from the ground up. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Would you be if they buffed your new crew and made them better?  I tend to doubt it.  I've never seen someone react negatively when a model gets buffed.  I suppose out there there's some person who wants their models to be bad and is atrociously offended when they're good, but I've never met them.  For people I know who play once a week they have to look at the app to remember the exact details of their models most of the time anyway.  If one goes from Df 4->5 do you think they'd even notice?  Odds are pretty good they wouldn't.  And the "bad stuff" is that they play the old version of the model that isn't very good - which is what they're doing anyway.

So to me this seems entirely theoretical.  It's all hypotheticals.  I'll tell you what I have seen - when they buffed order initiates my local arcanist player pulled out his Marcus and tried lists with 2-3 order initiates.  The list wasn't that amazing, but the order initiate was sure a damn sight stronger than it was pre-buff, and he liked that.  Now I've seen him consider playing Marcus more - which was entirely inspired by a buff. 

So against this hypothetical my real world experience is people love buffs.  People love when the new masters have made crews like Perdita viable.  People love pulling out their models and trying something because "hey it changed, lets see what it feels like".  Real, actual people.  There's been some complaints because of the sheer scale of Malifaux Burns changes, but again Df 4->5 is the exact opposite of those sorts of sweeping changes that practically involve relearning matchups from the ground up. 

I can - as a very real world example - tell you of my self and why i dropped Wild West Exodus.
Because of too frequent updates. I got around to play a game maybe every other month, maybe every three month.

And almost every time i got to play i had to reprint the cards, reevaluate what my units could do (mostly buffs usually cause Warrior Nations weren't that good) and that annoyed the heck out of me so i dropped out of the game and stopped playing WWX entirely.

Also i see in our local meta ppl who are annoyed when they buy the nice n shiny boxes and come to the table and get informed, hey that particular card has been errata'ed. Not everyone is so involved with the game to even KNOW that there are regular errata, that the cards can be downloaded or that an app exists.

Yes those players are unlikely to ever show up at a tournament but from what i see in our local meta and other metas tournament players are actually minority which is disproportionate vocal due to being active in things like this forum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, how do these mythical beasts deal with the issue of Gaining Grounds?  I mean they wander into the store unaware of any apps, websites, errata, faqs, or anything happen in the community, and... what then?  Do you introduce them to the four new strategies and 13 new schemes that make up the objectives of the game?  Because this is the fundamental rules and objectives of the game that you're playing that change on a yearly basis - and that has far more impact on play experience than a couple of model changes. 

I guess everyone I know has one of those newfangled digital smartphones, is aware of the existence of the internet, and at least interested enough in the game that they're broadly aware of changes. I'm not saying no one has been caught off guard by a sudden unannounced GG Update, but this level of sheer disconnect from players isn't something I regularly encounter.  

Maybe this is just the famed rural/urban divide in action.  Although I still wonder why if Cletus is playing Billy-Bob they can't just use their GG0 cards and rules since apparently they're not following any of thte updates anyway.   If you just don't give a fuck, why would you use new rules?  Hell, they could play Malifaux 2E for all we know, the rules are still in the books, the game still works just fine.  They don't need to follow any update they don't care for (which they won't be doing because they don't have any electronics apparently). 

  • Respectfully Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spitfire said:

I can - as a very real world example - tell you of my self and why i dropped Wild West Exodus.
Because of too frequent updates. I got around to play a game maybe every other month, maybe every three month.

And almost every time i got to play i had to reprint the cards, reevaluate what my units could do (mostly buffs usually cause Warrior Nations weren't that good) and that annoyed the heck out of me so i dropped out of the game and stopped playing WWX entirely.

Also i see in our local meta ppl who are annoyed when they buy the nice n shiny boxes and come to the table and get informed, hey that particular card has been errata'ed. Not everyone is so involved with the game to even KNOW that there are regular errata, that the cards can be downloaded or that an app exists.

Yes those players are unlikely to ever show up at a tournament but from what i see in our local meta and other metas tournament players are actually minority which is disproportionate vocal due to being active in things like this forum.

Yeah, I think this is pretty typical.

If you only play every month or so, you get a Gaining Grounds change every 12 games but have time to absorb it.

If you had to re-memorize your Stat cards every single game that'd get really frustrating.

That said I'd be curious to see twice a year errata, but even that seems ambitious to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, I think this is pretty typical.

If you only play every month or so, you get a Gaining Grounds change every 12 games but have time to absorb it.

If you had to re-memorize your Stat cards every single game that'd get really frustrating.

That said I'd be curious to see twice a year errata, but even that seems ambitious to me.

Um.  So does anyone who plays once a month memorize their stats cards for every one of their models?  Because I play with people who play way more than once a month and they still check their cards.  You just don't memorize every  stat value and TN on a card unless you play with it on a near daily basis, at least for most people. 

I really must meet these once a month casual players who have all their cards completely memorized so well they can recite them with  100% accuracy from memory, don't own smartphones, are unsure of how the internet works, and decry everything digital yet feel compelled to play with only the most up to date rules and components no matter what.  I feel like I must round up a few anthropologists and turn it into a true expedition.  How do they live?  What do they do for work?  Are they still genetically similar to homo sapiens? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue that more often errata would bring is it could change players' attitude to the game. Using my previous playing miniature game as example, where players used to discuss meta at the start of the game just released. They tried  everything to make the underpower models work, as well as look for counters and solutions to overpower list.

But things got changed since the compony started a testing cycle scheme, where they released new models and buffed existing models for a faction in every month. Players stopped thinking and instead just calling for buff and debuff afterward. Why make effort to beat a top tier list if is guarantee to be nerfed in next month? Why practice with the bad models if they are likely to be changed and become completely different in next few weeks?

The player base of that game is quite different so I don't 100% think this would happen in Malifaux. But it is total a thing to consider imo. I don't want to see the community became something like "How to beat Kirai?""Wait for the nex errata." 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume players that play 10 games a year don't care about gaining grounds.

And even if they don't know every stat or TN they might remember the attack has a stat6 that you just changed.

 

Changing a card isn't as easy as making a change in Illustrator. It requires playtesting, it requires physical printing, sometimes shuffling card space.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RisingPhoenix - these are generally players that don't have the full text memorised, but they have an idea of "how the model works". If that changes in a relevant fashion, then it is probably an unwelcome surprise if it happens too often. If it doesn't change enough that you'd notice, why was it changed?

Aside from that, the idea that everyone is happy when they get buffed models holds some water, but misses that there is an opponent who may be rather less happy that this target Minion is unexpectedly surviving, or suddenly dropping more consistent damage than last game.

I appreciate that you don't seem to think these people that don't appreciate continuous errata exist, but the weight of anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that they do.

  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the issue when talking about errata or buffing models is that Malifaux is (still) a game with a number of different lines of play. Buffing models tends to make them better at fighting because most people play the game as a big punch-up.

My favorite games of Malifaux have very little "action" and lots of fencing around the edges grabbing points. So buffing everything for combat doesn't speak to me or my engagement with the game.

Which is not to say don't do it, it's just to say that iterative adjustments will move the game in a direction. To Rufess' point I'm sad that you can beat Nexus1 now by slamming into it with an agro crew. Obviously they needed adjustments but I really appreciated having one crew in the game that shut down that most relentlessly boring line of play. *Shrug*

I appreciate the room for creative play in Malifaux. I appreciate that there are keywords that are OP if you follow their lines of play. I think the best thing for balance would be a gg document that's much closer to a 2e Gaining Grounds with more avenues for scoring in more parts of the board and less focus on attrition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Part of the issue when talking about errata or buffing models is that Malifaux is (still) a game with a number of different lines of play. Buffing models tends to make them better at fighting because most people play the game as a big punch-up.

My favorite games of Malifaux have very little "action" and lots of fencing around the edges grabbing points. So buffing everything for combat doesn't speak to me or my engagement with the game.

Which is not to say don't do it, it's just to say that iterative adjustments will move the game in a direction. To Rufess' point I'm sad that you can beat Nexus1 now by slamming into it with an agro crew. Obviously they needed adjustments but I really appreciated having one crew in the game that shut down that most relentlessly boring line of play. *Shrug*

I appreciate the room for creative play in Malifaux. I appreciate that there are keywords that are OP if you follow their lines of play. I think the best thing for balance would be a gg document that's much closer to a 2e Gaining Grounds with more avenues for scoring in more parts of the board and less focus on attrition.

The issues I have with this is
a) this is still a wargame
b) you might end up with very uninteractive gameplay where both players do what they want.

Not saying I disagree with you but I think both things have to be taken into account

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Out of curiosity, how do these mythical beasts deal with the issue of Gaining Grounds?  I mean they wander into the store unaware of any apps, websites, errata, faqs, or anything happen in the community, and... what then?  Do you introduce them to the four new strategies and 13 new schemes that make up the objectives of the game? 

 

In many cases (but not all) these more casual gamers who show up once in awhile do have the app or are willing to download the free app.  That said, unlikely more involved players, they don't spend their time reading through the app or online errata announcements all day long. 

Generally, though, once you've played a few games of Malifaux you understand the idea that scheme & strategy pools change from game to game, so the idea of a whole new set of scheme/strats released with a new GG is not the huge difference you make it out to be. Yes, it's different competitively, but for a casual players it's just "Oh so this game I don't need to kill your models carrying the evidence and instead I need to push these pillars across the halfway line? Sounds cool, let's go!"

 

Card changes are a bit more jarring for casual players who have a general idea of what their crew does.  "What do you mean Raspy doesn't have a melee attack anymore? What am I supposed to do if you just engage her" is something I can see a more casual player saying even though that card change was an overall buff.

 

Side note, It's a good idea to dial back the rhetoric. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, trikk said:

The issues I have with this is
a) this is still a wargame
b) you might end up with very uninteractive gameplay where both players do what they want.

Not saying I disagree with you but I think both things have to be taken into account

A) the war side of the game is by far the weaker side.

B) so? I had great, tense games of 2e that were races to ten and they were some of the best games of anything I've ever played.

And C) I never said a packet that made for passive games, but a scoring structure that takes pressure off of combat to be the be-all-end-all.

I should say, I like the combat in Malifaux fine. It's appropriate as one-of-several-things-going-on. It's just that most of what survives in the meta is exclusively what can force engagement at will so the game devolves into another fine scrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

A) the war side of the game is by far the weaker side.

B) so? I had great, tense games of 2e that were races to ten and they were some of the best games of anything I've ever played.

And C) I never said a packet that made for passive games, but a scoring structure that takes pressure off of combat to be the be-all-end-all.

I should say, I like the combat in Malifaux fine. It's appropriate as one-of-several-things-going-on. It's just that most of what survives in the meta is exclusively what can force engagement at will so the game devolves into another fine scrum.

Personally I think that what makes Malifaux great is that when you get into it, you learn that you can play without combat being the be-all-end-all. It's really awesome to go "you mean I win by something other than combat?"

But at the moment, certainly competitive GG2 I feel like the majority of pools you really want to be prepared to dominate combat wise (or withstand being dominated combat wise).

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as combat goes, I know there were certainly some of the changes from M2E to M3E that were motivated by one of the designers saying (paraphrasing) "Killing the other player's models should sometimes be a mistake."

And, for what it's worth, my experience with people who play less frequently than I do is that there's a really straight split:

  • The most up to date models cards is seen as really important to use.
  • It's much less important which scenario set is used (whether it's the book scenarios, or a Gaining Grounds season).

which seems to be that people expect their goals to change frequently, but prefer for their tools (and the other player's tools) to change less frequently--a new model is a new tool.  An old tool shouldn't change unless there was a problem.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that'd be cool to see would would an edition 3.5.

Re-releasing the faction packs with updated cards would be cool. They could rework 1 keyword per faction, smooth out quality of life issues like experimental Shockwave, and tinker with the stats across the game.

I'm all for tinkering on a large scale with errata, but recognize that wyrd needs to be a little strategic with it.

And while I don't think it'd be good ROI despite the revenue of faction packs, it probably would be good investment for the game's future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

And while I don't think it'd be good ROI despite the revenue of faction packs, it probably would be good investment for the game's future. 

I’m pretty sure the headaches involved with the M2E faction packs are the main reason why all of the card PDFs are available for free or on print on demand.  You’d have to ask someone at Wyrd to find out for sure how many print batches they purchased, but it was likely more than people think.  (With the problem being that the cards sell out when they arrive, and then everyone waits for the next print run...)

Basically, it doesn’t work to get people the cards that way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, solkan said:
13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

And while I don't think it'd be good ROI despite the revenue of faction packs, it probably would be good investment for the game's future. 

I’m pretty sure the headaches involved with the M2E faction packs are the main reason why all of the card PDFs are available for free or on print on demand.  You’d have to ask someone at Wyrd to find out for sure how many print batches they purchased, but it was likely more than people think.  (With the problem being that the cards sell out when they arrive, and then everyone waits for the next print run...)

Basically, it doesn’t work to get people the cards that way.

Yeah, i remember there were posts around when faction packs were disappearing in stores with a 'why not more print runs' and the response was 'yeah, people arent even buying the ones that are out there' or something like that.  Which I can believe as I still see faction packs for m2e featured pretty heavily in ebay auctions and just want to be like 'hope you aint increasing the price on this for that super out of date set of cards for a previous edition'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, muraki said:

Yeah, i remember there were posts around when faction packs were disappearing in stores with a 'why not more print runs' and the response was 'yeah, people arent even buying the ones that are out there' or something like that.  Which I can believe as I still see faction packs for m2e featured pretty heavily in ebay auctions and just want to be like 'hope you aint increasing the price on this for that super out of date set of cards for a previous edition'

I believe there are a few of these m2e packs at our local store. Just recently found mine cleaning out my old carrying case.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information