Errata 2022- core rules

[admiralvorkraft]

22 hours ago, solkan said:

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."

If that was the goal then I'd argue they didn't succeed. Combat is across the board cheaper and easier to force in 3e than 2e and the structure of scoring actively punishes crews that don't prioritize combat.

The best fix is just allow EoG scoring on schemes to be any turn after the first scheme is revealed and give non-combat (but still interactive) paths to scoring - old school Headhunter was brilliant and interesting where Recover Evidence was the boring version. The only other tweak if like to see if requiring targeting a model in order to charge it, and making the charge a push towards that model. The board gets a lot bigger and more impactful immediately.

[Maniacal_cackle]

This suggestion of 'make scoring earlier' keeps coming up, and seems super interesting.

I do remember with plant explosives for example, it was quite common for me to rush the markers down so that I could then focus on disrupting my opponent/forcing them to kill their way through my crew.

So I didn't need the combat-superior force as long as I got that early lead on points. Feels a lot harder to do that now!

Would be neat to have a GG3 where they try it out and we can see how it goes.

[RisingPhoenix]

@DuBlanck The changes that casual players really notice and the changes that serious players notice aren't at all the same things.  For instance, imagine if you removed this from the back of the Dead Outlaw's card:

Casual players would probably be shocked.  This model lost an entire ability!  An entire ability!  It's huge, it can obey enemy models, it's got two triggers, you can't just remove it!  Anyone who plays the crew competitively would know this literally doesn't change the Dead Outlaw.  At all. 

Meanwhile for a competitive player, Barbaros going from Df 5->6 is a hugely impactful change, while a casual player is probably not even going to notice there's a difference.  It's exactly things like "total movement range" or "exact defense numbers" that casual players need to check, but changes to these are often very impactful at making models better and worse, and are easy ways to slightly improve models and increase diversity. 

I've explained this difference what feels like three times now, so hopefully this time around you got it.  A small change is not "completely rework the card".  It is change a stat or two, add a trigger, those sorts of small changes that casual players don't have memorized, and are not going to notice being different, but which can very much effect if the model is worth taking.

As an aside, these sorts of small changes are also nice in that it doesn't really matter if their cards "lag behind" the true card by a few months.  When they do get the update, the way the model plays won't completely change (like Benny or Bayou Smugglers, which were massive reworks), the model will essentially be a similar model to what it is now - just a bit better. 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Adran

[Morgan Vening]

On 3/13/2022 at 1:09 PM, admiralvorkraft said:

The only other tweak if like to see if requiring targeting a model in order to charge it, and making the charge a push towards that model.

Not a fan of this. Changes the impact of several abilities (Stealth and Rush for starters), but also disrupts Run and Gun in a way I don't think is necessary or fair.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yeah personally I like the tactical options for charge as is.

Even things like charging past engagement and running for the objectives has a cool vibe.

[DuBlanck]

Assuming I'm understanding @RisingPhoenix right midst the attitude and snippiness:

The exact specifics of how VP are scored changing from game to game is one of the core tenets of Malifaux. No, I don't think re-introducing EoG scoring in a new GGX would be a problem - players are always checking something that they expect to be different.

Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, it means games are a bit less likely to be over fifty minutes before they finish due to constraints on when and how much you can score.

I'll concede the point on sufficiently small tweaks, after a bit more thought.

[Adran]

<MODHAT>

Please remember to be civil in your replies. If you can't make your point without being rude, then its better to not make your point.

</ModHat>

 

[admiralvorkraft]

8 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Not a fan of this. Changes the impact of several abilities (Stealth and Rush for starters), but also disrupts Run and Gun in a way I don't think is necessary or fair.

I'd be fine with just a change requiring you to target the model when declaring the action. Might have to reword Stealth to not make it better Disguised, you're right.

I think the current way Rush works is silly but that's neither here or there. What I care about is having positioning choices that matter beyond a top down measure of proximity. Limiting charges seems like the most elegant way to achieve that to me.

[RisingPhoenix]

On 3/14/2022 at 3:08 AM, DuBlanck said:

Assuming I'm understanding @RisingPhoenix right midst the attitude and snippiness:

The exact specifics of how VP are scored changing from game to game is one of the core tenets of Malifaux. No, I don't think re-introducing EoG scoring in a new GGX would be a problem - players are always checking something that they expect to be different.

So people check scoring in the app at the start of a game because they might have forgotten the exact scoring rules, were unlikely to have memorized the schemes and strats in the first place, and if they haven't played in a while things might have changed.

It seems we can equally expect that people to check the models in the app at the start of a game because they might have forgotten the exact card text, were unlikely to have memorized all the stats and abilities in the first place, and if they haven't played in a while things might have changed.

These look the same because they are the same.  That's how people operate in reality.  People check the app.  Or if they just want to play a casual game where they don't care, they don't care if they're playing with the latest rules or latest stuff, they play their game with their friends and don't worry about it.  And they get all sorts of rules wrong, terrible terrible rules to get wrong that completely imbalance the game.   And they just go and mess them up!  And its casual and they have fun with their friends and they don't care. 

A small number of people on the forums have invented a fictitious category of overly persnickity people who really care about getting every rule correct but can't actually be bothered to do any work to make it happen as a rhetorical device.   Go look at the rules and clarification section - if you can't reference that at the drop of a hat you are literally doomed to play malifaux wrong, because you will be messing up great and terrible rules you shouldn't be messing up.  I'd wing it that since GG2 at least half of all "casual players" have had a summoned model interact with a strategy marker - if they've played in enough games to even play with a summoner.  If they don't have a smart phone to reference during the game, they're not persnickity at all.  Or they're playing a different game, one with less rules complexity, more streamlined implementation, and which doesn't have all the warts of Malifaux. 

So yeah, if you don't have a smartphone you're playing the game wrong.  But that was always going to happen.  And every player of Malifaux has bought into that enough to keep playing (if you think M3E's rules are ornary, M2E had more exceptions than rules).  Buffs will make the game more diverse and make more masters viable for people who play frequently.  And people who don't play frequently and don't look up things on their phone won't care. 

[Adran]

I am not a normal malifaux player. It is perfectly possible no one else plays/learns the way I do. But that doesn't make my view wrong.

I do not use a smart phone at the game, and I'm not sure I've faced anyone who does. ( although thst is probably due to only playing in a very small meta recently thanks to lockdown etc). In general I think I haven't got a rule wrong in a M3 game ( I generally have a rule book to hand, and I'm the guy most locals go to to check the rules) but there are certainly some things I would not be comfortable with without looking at the core rules errata. ( the fine details of replace for example). I don't automatically update my app every time there is an errata because I have downloaded the cards to my phone, and I most commonly find out about errata when I'm somewhere that my phone isn't on Wi-Fi. 

I don't actively try and memorise cards but I do remember them. So the numbers on a card I am most likely to know are the numbers that get used, and this corresponds to what I assume are the numbers you are most likely to change in small incremental errata.

It doesn't matter if neither of you are aware of an errata, the problem is when you are using different rules, so one person knows of an errata and the other doesn't. I generally know if the crew I'm using has errata, and Will try and remember to make sure my opponent knows if I am using an errata, at least for a short time following it being published. I don't always remember if a model in my opponent crew has been errata'd.

There is a big difference in me playing a game and a person uses a new model I don't know the rules for and the person using an errata'd model I don't know the rules have changed for. 

Me planning a turn to kill Barbaros because I remember his old stats and find it does not work because of the changes that I didn't know/ remember is something I find frustrating. 

I find it much easier to remember a new model than to change what I need to remember about a model, leading to more more referring throughout a game, more planning and discarding plans because they won't work. Other people may well differ in their opinions and experiences, and that's fine, but I'm explaining why I don't like errata in the way you propose. 

That is not equivalent to the gaining grounds changing the strategy or schemes ( except when they do errata them).

If I play a scheme/ strategy I don't know or haven't played before I know that I don't know it. That is a difference to thinking I know something and finding out that what I thought I knew is no longer true. 

I hope this at least explains my opinion, and why I hold it. It works for me. It may not work for anyone else in the world. But it does at least have others on this forum have similar conclusions even if they have a different reason why they got there.

I also have a greater tolerance than most for "occasional models", those that are only the right choice 1 game in 20 or so. And on my personal criteria most models at least fit into that sort of playability level. So I have a low gain in moving a model from a valid in 5% of the games to a valid in 10% of the games, because I was probably playing it in those 5% occasions anyway so it's not an unplayed model to me. I have a relatively high mental cost to those changes in making bad choices during a game because I mis remembered the model from it's current state. 

I can see other players may well think it's a low cost and high benefit  because of how they play.

Wyrd typically have a better idea on the views of the larger player base than any one group. The forum is not representative of the wider base of players, it is biased towards players that know the game well and want to get things right. It is also biased towards people that will know there has been an errata. I assume that whilst it is vocal, they also have other data about players habits to base their choice on. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

There's really two elements there:

Frequency: How frequent should errata be? I think it should be relatively rare (twice a year seems ambitious but possibly doable).

Physical media: How important are physical cards? I think they're important, BUT they're not as important as good errata.

Like if cards are actually a limiting factor, you could ask basically anyone "should we be more hesitant to errata minions over henchmen and enforcers? To save on card changes?" and the answer is going to be almost overwhelmingly no I think.

People I suspect value good errata over cards, but also just want both (good errata and access to physical cards). So that leaves Wyrd in a tough spot. I suspect people would get pretty upset if they stopped doing cards altogether.

Personally I think people would live with printable cards (particularly as printing on quality card stock is somewhat trivial if you have access to decent infrastructure).

But as many people have said... Wyrd knows their business better than us (presumably xD). But at the same time, businesses should be open to change. I think in the year 2022, being willing to go to a bit more of a digital distribution model is pretty reasonable.

Hell, in 10 to 15 years we may be at the point of digital distribution for models. We're already sorta at that point for that here in NZ because shipping is so expensive. The only reasons I continue to buy official Wyrd models is that it supports the company and also helps build up 'Malifaux' as a community here in NZ.

So in some ways, I think Wyrd does need to start looking at "what does wargaming in a digital world look like?'

On the flip side... Part of the appeal of wargaming is that it is physical. You can play video games on the computer, but you can't get your computer to set up a beautiful 3 dimensional board with your friends as you push beautifully painted plastic around the table (yet).

So I can see why they'd be hesitant to just abandon the physical space when it is literally the only place they can make money.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 

But as many people have said... Wyrd knows their business better than us (presumably xD). But at the same time, businesses should be open to change. I think in the year 2022, being willing to go to a bit more of a digital distribution model is pretty reasonable.

Hell, in 10 to 15 years we may be at the point of digital distribution for models. We're already sorta at that point for that here in NZ because shipping is so expensive. The only reasons I continue to buy official Wyrd models is that it supports the company and also helps build up 'Malifaux' as a community here in NZ.

So in some ways, I think Wyrd does need to start looking at "what does wargaming in a digital world look like?'

 

For historical note, during the first 2 editions you had to buy the rules. They started making pdf for sale near the end of first edition. Some point during M2 they chose to make the rules free online. 

The M2e app, which was only put out near the end of the edition, didn't come with the cards, you had to buy the cards for the app, and from my understanding they were not print friendly.  So we have gone from the only way to get model rules is the book or the card that comes with the model, to them being free on line for anyone to use/print

So wyrd has certainly been changing digital distribution over the years, increasing the ability to get the rules for free. 

I'm sure there is further that could be done, but they do need to make money somewhere, and I don't want in game ads, just imagine Kyle interrupting turn3 of every game to sing a jingle...😪

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 minutes ago, Adran said:

For historical note, during the first 2 editions you had to buy the rules. They started making pdf for sale near the end of first edition. Some point during M2 they chose to make the rules free online. 

The M2e app, which was only put out near the end of the edition, didn't come with the cards, you had to buy the cards for the app, and from my understanding they were not print friendly.  So we have gone from the only way to get model rules is the book or the card that comes with the model, to them being free on line for anyone to use/print

So wyrd has certainly been changing digital distribution over the years, increasing the ability to get the rules for free. 

I'm sure there is further that could be done, but they do need to make money somewhere, and I don't want in game ads, just imagine Kyle interrupting turn3 of every game to sing a jingle...😪

Yeah, to be honest I think one of the biggest challenges for the tabletop industry over the next decade or two will be "how do you deal with the fact that people can just 3D print a viable copy of your game?"

I think Wyrd is currently hitting a pretty good balance - make the physical game very enjoyable, produce an extremely high quality product (most of the time), and provide good service to the customers in the form of a great game that produces good will.

[Shakyor]

Regarding the superfriends issue, I really only think this is a problem for specific masters which shine by themselves but have problematic crews. Like Seamus. First of all, I can totally see that maybe the healthiest way for the game is to buff the keywords which currently play superfriends list and then tone down the master as necessary to bring everything into line.

If not the most elegant solution would be a new master ability like "Distrustful" or "Bad Reputation" which makes hiring OOK more difficult for these specific masters. Could even be different ways. For example Seamus gets "Bad Reputation" - +1 SS for OOK hiring. Colette gets "The wrong kind of attention" - All OOK Models start with +1 Distracted.

[GrumpyGrandpa]

54 minutes ago, Shakyor said:

If not the most elegant solution would be a new master ability like "Distrustful" or "Bad Reputation" which makes hiring OOK more difficult for these specific masters. Could even be different ways. For example Seamus gets "Bad Reputation" - +1 SS for OOK hiring. Colette gets "The wrong kind of attention" - All OOK Models start with +1 Distracted.

Couldn't you just increase the cost of the master? It would save some space on the card.

Misread the comment. My bad guys.

Edited March 17, 2022 by GrumpyGrandpa

[Maniacal_cackle]

21 minutes ago, GrumpyGrandpa said:

Couldn't you just increase the cost of the master? It would save some space on the card.

You don't have to spend stones on your leader, so increasing the cost doesn't do much for single master formats.

37 minutes ago, Shakyor said:

Regarding the superfriends issue, I really only think this is a problem for specific masters which shine by themselves but have problematic crews. Like Seamus. First of all, I can totally see that maybe the healthiest way for the game is to buff the keywords which currently play superfriends list and then tone down the master as necessary to bring everything into line.

If not the most elegant solution would be a new master ability like "Distrustful" or "Bad Reputation" which makes hiring OOK more difficult for these specific masters. Could even be different ways. For example Seamus gets "Bad Reputation" - +1 SS for OOK hiring. Colette gets "The wrong kind of attention" - All OOK Models start with +1 Distracted.

I am still not convinced there is much of an OOK issue. There's some models that do see play everywhere (like Archivist), but they tend to be outliers and tend to get brought into line.

OOKs to me are a pretty core part of the game and the teching strategies, and also increase viability of masters with weak keywords.

[Adran]

31 minutes ago, GrumpyGrandpa said:

Couldn't you just increase the cost of the master? It would save some space on the card.

How would that stop the master hiring lots of ook? And most people don't pay the master cost. ( I don't think the issue discussed is hiring second masters, it a master hiring no/few keyword models in their crew). 

[GrumpyGrandpa]

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

How would that stop the master hiring lots of ook? And most people don't pay the master cost. ( I don't think the issue discussed is hiring second masters, it a master hiring no/few keyword models in their crew). 

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood - Thought the subject that turned around, and focused on that part. My bad 😅

[Maniacal_cackle]

To further elaborate on the OOK discussion, one example of what happens when you decrease OOKs...

In the world series last event, I considered playing Molly, McMourning, Jack Daw, Seamus, Yan Lo, and Reva over the 6 rounds.

In the month where OOKs and versatile are restricted to 15 stones, I'm probably just going to solo Yan Lo as his keyword is really good xD

[Shakyor]

Yeah maybe i made this not clear enough - I agree with you. Thats what I tried to say that wenn lots of OOK is played usually there is a balancing issue somewhere else which needs to be addressed.

Take Seamus, since I play him a lot. He just is way too strong , probably one of the strongest master cards in the game. The thing is, he doesnt particular want to play versatile models, his crew just sucks and does not work. If he would be weak, he just would not be played at all. Seamus is played despite his crew and versatiles are a necessary evil.

So to make Red Chapel work you need to buff Bete Noir, Bells and probably much more. Then you can tone down Seamus (i really dislike his ignore hard to wound). For example having him only shot isolated models efficiently would really fit with his theme. At this point he would likely not need an adjustment to use versatiles.

My suggestions was just if you deliberately wanted design space for overpowered masters with weak keywords as balancing factors. But i dont like this to be honest.

Experimenting with OOK models is one of the most fun i have in malifaux, find crazy combinations. (Crooked Men are really fun in Seamus 2!) I dont think they should limit this experimentation.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Shakyor said:

 For example having him only shot isolated models efficiently would really fit with his theme. At this point he would likely not need an adjustment to use versatiles.
.

This is a bit off topic now, but hot damn it'd be cool if Seamus got ++ to damage when shooting isolated targets but could not gain the focused condition.

[RisingPhoenix]

@Maniacal_cackleWell this might be the biggest jump of... all time ever.  There's a pretty big gap between "doing multiple power-level errata a year and being open to buffing models in small ways to improve diversity and available options" and "abandoning the physical playspace".  Like an enormous, huge gap.  And it's not a slippery slope or anything of the sort from one to the other. 

Hell, over the past ten years board games and physical games in general have seen a resurgance.  Now COVID has doubtless put a damper on that, but I believ tehy'll continue to gain popularity.  They won't replace video games, just as video games have not replaced them.  But they also both can learn from each other. 

Malifaux isn't a video game, and shouldn't become one.  But it shouldn't learn nothing from them either.  Ignoring them is just as crazy as becoming one. 

Having more models and more masters be viable picks is a good thing.  And small tweaks to models to make them more viable is one of the best ways to get there. 

 

Are you actually willing to state outright that you have an issue with having diverse options available, and would prefer less masters being viable over more and having trap models that are not worth taking?

 

P.S.  with small numerical adjustments you can use the same cards as before with the help of a sharpie, if physical cards are really so important (which no one is really convinced they are)

[ooshawn]

i think it's okay to have seamus be really strong. Seems thematic too. He's just a psychopath that screws and murders and raises street walkers. Dude doesn't have a "crew". makes sense that he would be a apex strong master and just have a bunch of loosely related weak zombie hookers to support him. 

[Rufess]

You seems like to use LoL(which is not very good at balancing imo though) as an example to support your point of small adjustment. But even Riot would not release the balance patch they just made up in the meeting room to the public. Instead they setup a testing server to have players testing before release. And Wyrd is actually doing the same thing.

The main difference is: There are more LoL games played a day than Malifaux games played a year. With a way bigger data and more simple way to gather it, Riot can make change more rapidly and precisely. Wyrd, with a smaller player base, would need a longer period, usually 3~4 months, to doing so. If they were decided to have 2 errata a year, then they would have only a month or 2 to gather feedback since the last errata before starting the next one, which is way too short for players to provide opinion without noises and biases.

And don't even think of doing errata without testing. During a beta test, a model would usually be changed multiple times and in very different directions. You mentioned you like the Barbaros changes in this errata, but what you don't know is it took him 10+ versions before finalized to the current one. If we were releasing errata without testing, then expect seeing the folloing situation:

• 1st Errata: Yasunori changes to 9ss to improve its performance.
• 2nd Errata: Yasunori changes to 10ss because 9ss is too efficient.
• 3rd Errata: Yasunori slightly tweaked to increase competitiveness.
• 4th Errata: Yasunori reworks to becomes a high-end scheme runner to distinguish from Emissary and Dawn Serpent.
• 5th Errata: Yasunori changes to 9ss.
• 6th Errata: Yasunori is rolled back to the beater role because the schemer role did not work at all. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Rufess

[RisingPhoenix]

On 3/17/2022 at 8:24 PM, Rufess said:

.

And don't even think of doing errata without testing. During a beta test, a model would usually be changed multiple times and in very different directions. You mentioned you like the Barbaros changes in this errata, but what you don't know is it took him 10+ versions before finalized to the current one. If we were releasing errata without testing, then expect seeing the folloing situation:

I, um, press X to doubt.   The changes were in total +1 Df/-1 Wp, change Challenging to Caught in the Ring, and changer Regenerating to Broodfighter.   Unless they tried completely reworking Barbaros' entire function and then abandoned that rework (which is a different problem) there just isn't enough flex on the changes to actually have had ten iterations of them. 

Now the odd one out in there is Broodfighter.  It's a brand new Keyword ability, templated to create a lot of mobility for a keyword with black blood and lots of regeneration.  With the addition of the Keyword RETURNED then that would lead one to believe that Broodfighter is part of Lilith's Neverborn keyword. 

As a Keyword ability that will appear on multiple models and help define her crew's playstyle, do I absolutely believe it changed ten times in playtesting?  Hell yes.  With a crew keyword, even minor changes does massive things (see the Von Schtook disaster).  Is that the same thing as Barbaros changing ten times in playtesting?  I kinda don't think so.  It's pretty dishonest way to frame things. 

 

But hey, since we have this beta test pool where Wyrd can make changes and have them tested, why don't they make some minor changes to a whole bunch of models in the beta pool?  Then they can be tested out over time and they get feedback.  If we can't have changes in the real world without testing, they can at least do fast iterations in the kiddie sandbox right? Then when they roll out the once-a-year balance patch they can make a whole ton of changes, right?
 

If Wyrd would just talk and say "hey yeah we're going to toss a bunch of changes onto the beta sandbox with a plan to incorporate them unless we run into issues" that would satisfy me that something is happening behind the scenes. 

 

On 3/17/2022 at 1:36 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

In the world series last event, I considered playing Molly, McMourning, Jack Daw, Seamus, Yan Lo, and Reva over the 6 rounds.

In the month where OOKs and versatile are restricted to 15 stones, I'm probably just going to solo Yan Lo as his keyword is really good xD

Well if we keep tweaking 1-2 models at a time, we'll get around to Rabble Rousers and Phillip and the Nanny around what, 2025-2027?  I mean they're hardly Gaki levels of terrible, they're just not... good.  So if we continue at this rate of buffs, that's the situation for the next 5 years or so (at least). 

Or if we did some small buffs they'd be more worth taking, maybe there'd be more reason to take some in-keyword models for Molly.  Would that be more fun for Molly players?  Hopefully, yes.  Would that make more fun to play against Molly?  I admit I'd have to learn to play around Phillip and the Nanny since I don't think I've seen him on the board more than once or twice, but that honestly sounds like fun to me.  I kind of get a thrill when I see a rarely-taken model, especially if it does interesting things.