A proposition for defensive effects.

[Omadon]

EDIT: Wall of text aside, I'm going to post the point of what I'm talking about before I talk about it.

Proposition: Take all/most of all of the defensive abilitys that models have, and make them last untill the start of their next activation.

The point of this being, the idea that something will drop defensive stance randomly every so often feels really wrong to me. Defensive abilitys in games that don't have conjoined turns last until your next turn, which works, but comes with the flaw of having nuke-turns where somebody focuses all their models on one thing. I prefer the way the turn structure works in Malifaux, I just feel that it means certain defensive abilitys don't quite function how I feel they should.

Things like Bishops cage fighter/adaptive fighter, everybodys defensive stance, anything of that nature. If they lasted til your next activation, then who wins initiative wouldent be such an enormous deal, and you wouldent be able to pressure somebody into activating another model so that you could get to another model before it could reapply it's abilitys. Also - it would just make Marcus a better master, as I think he's one of the models that suffers the most from this.

Oppinions anybody? If anyone can think of anything that would be wrong with this, then I'd like to hear it. I imagine with wider scrutiny some abilitys might not be viable for being made til next activation, but as a general rule, I think it fits almost everywhere.

[acid_gaming]

I would need to play a few games with the change before being able to give proper feedback but I can already start to form some hypothesis.

Masters and characters that have the abilities would like you say gain extra ability to hide and stay safe. The down side to this is that weaker models that struggle to wound them whilst they are in a defensive stance would no longer be able to use the inititive to time their attacks.

I fear it would cause some situations where a model remains defensive on top of an objective and weaker models such as gremlins would lose on static combat resolution (to borrow the warhammer term).

With the current system defensive stances and abilities have a weak link built into them so that others can exploit it. It adds greater value to the inititive flip and means that clever placement of models and use of terrain is more important than running forward and going defensive.

[Justin]

EDIT: Wall of text aside, I'm going to post the point of what I'm talking about before I talk about it.

Proposition: Take all/most of all of the defensive abilitys that models have, and make them last untill the start of their next activation.

The point of this being, the idea that something will drop defensive stance randomly every so often feels really wrong to me. Defensive abilitys in games that don't have conjoined turns last until your next turn, which works, but comes with the flaw of having nuke-turns where somebody focuses all their models on one thing. I prefer the way the turn structure works in Malifaux, I just feel that it means certain defensive abilitys don't quite function how I feel they should.

Things like Bishops cage fighter/adaptive fighter, everybodys defensive stance, anything of that nature. If they lasted til your next activation, then who wins initiative wouldent be such an enormous deal, and you wouldent be able to pressure somebody into activating another model so that you could get to another model before it could reapply it's abilitys. Also - it would just make Marcus a better master, as I think he's one of the models that suffers the most from this.

Oppinions anybody? If anyone can think of anything that would be wrong with this, then I'd like to hear it. I imagine with wider scrutiny some abilitys might not be viable for being made til next activation, but as a general rule, I think it fits almost everywhere.

Hmmm...

That's an interesting idea. I can see both sides to it. At the least, if you go into defensive stance and only need it that turn, then you still suffer the -2/-2 walk/charge on the next turn, which would be a good thing. I hate it when my opponents walk twice and then go into defensive stance. That -2 walk really hurt them. At least this way the penalty would definitely be suffered, and it may take pressure off of initiative.

Eh, I'd be ok with that change. And I play gremlins.

Edit: Thinking about it, this method would grant the model going into defensive stance an additional AP since now, you spend an AP going into defensive stance on the first turn, and another on the second turn. With your method, they dpend one AP on the first turn and it lasts through the next turn, saving you an AP. So I'd be ok with your method if it made the model slow on its next activation.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Justin

[Omadon]

nono, not quite - it ends at the start of the next activation. As soon as they activate again previous effects would stop. The point of this is not to give extra AP, or change anything like that. I just Hate the game boiling down to who wins initiative. You have little to no control over it. It's one of the only flat 50/50 things in this game. You can't prepare for it, you can't keep things back, sometimes you just flat lose something because you were unlucky on the initiative. Getting the first activation in close combat should be enough. I don't see why everybody should drop their pants and wait for the next turn before guarding themselves properly again.

Admitedly - this would change the survivability of the game. This is the kind of debate I'd like. I haven't tested this, and as such it's mostly pure conjecture. That said, I don't think added survivability would be a bad thing. It doesnt help anybody with anything agressive - as the second something activates, whatever it had the turn before wares off.

So, what I want to find out is, what would it break? Models surviving more is the obvious result, but where does that become game breaking? (If, indeed, it does - I don't think it would) It would fix Marcus, finally. It would stop Bishop being greedy with your first action/being shit at the start of the turn. It would do wonderful things for Rhonin.

A couple things I think it might break are things like Lilith, with her trigger - Disappear is a debuff to an opponent. Things of that nature I feel should still wear off at the end of the turn. More to the point - anything which directly, negetivley effects the opponent I don't think should change. Only defensive buffs to the caster. Although you could argue that Alluring would count as the latter.

So - to consolidate my point.

Simple buffs, that do not directly effect other models, should persist until the beginning of the model in question's next activation. (EG: Marcus's Wild Heart/Bishop's Cage Fighter/Defensive Stance across the board)

This does not extend to defensive debuffs on opponents. (EG: Lilith's Disappear/Ramos's Pneumatic Grip)

Now that that's clear - any oppinions from marshals perhaps? I want as much scrutiny as possible.

[TheBugKing]

I'll chime in here since this is where I do most of my work.

It is imperative that similar abilities do the same things timing wise or you wind up with massive special cases and it increases the complexity of the game massively.

The suggestions that you are making will require the creation of a new class of ability that only ends at the beginning of the next activation. (Like Slow, Fast, Paralyze, Reactivate)

So, from a game mechanics standpoint this is going to be a big challenge. I'm not saying that is a bad idea mind you. (Though that is where Eric comes in) It will change the balance and the play time of the game significantly though.

Also, this should probably be moved to the general discussion as it isn't a rules question.

[Khail]

Moved to the base Malifaux Matters forum.

[Omadon]

The suggestions that you are making will require the creation of a new class of ability that only ends at the beginning of the next activation. (Like Slow, Fast, Paralyze, Reactivate)

So, from a game mechanics standpoint this is going to be a big challenge. I'm not saying that is a bad idea mind you. (Though that is where Eric comes in) It will change the balance and the play time of the game significantly though.

Actually, precedent has been set - randomly, Samael's flaming bullets last until his next activation. A couple abilitys have that written to them, and just a rewording of a couple spells in the next FAQ, and a reworking of defensive stance would do the trick.

I'm in the middle of work now (Actually about to do a demo game ^^) but, when I get some spare time, I'm going to run through the book, find everything I feel would be effected by such a change, then we can look at which of them would benefit too much/potentially break.

[TheBugKing]

Actually, precedent has been set - randomly, Samael's flaming bullets last until his next activation. A couple abilitys have that written to them, and just a rewording of a couple spells in the next FAQ, and a reworking of defensive stance would do the trick.

Samael's Flaming Bullets is a special one off case. It specifically states that it lasts till the End of his next activation. I.E. you only need to use it once every two turns.

In terms of your suggestion, we consciously try to make templating issues like Defensive Stance as simple as possible. This would require a a major change to the ability and as I said, a new ability class.

Rest assured that we are looking at this stuff though.

[paperbag4]

I think Lalochezia's point was that the model would go into Defensive stance on turn 1, and then activate last on turn 2, effectively giving it two turns worth of protection for just one AP.

Personally, I enjoy having the game balance sometimes on who wins the iniative flip. You then get the gamble of "s it worth this soulstone to try to beat his 10?" Sure, sometimes your opponent flips a 13 and there's really no hope of going first, but unless they're using companion to activate all of their models before you go -- and I'm pretty sure only Ortegas and Seamus can do this -- you're still going to be able to activate your model and re-apply defensive stance (or whatever else you're using).

[Justin]

I think Lalochezia's point was that the model would go into Defensive stance on turn 1, and then activate last on turn 2, effectively giving it two turns worth of protection for just one AP.

Personally, I enjoy having the game balance sometimes on who wins the iniative flip. You then get the gamble of "s it worth this soulstone to try to beat his 10?" Sure, sometimes your opponent flips a 13 and there's really no hope of going first, but unless they're using companion to activate all of their models before you go -- and I'm pretty sure only Ortegas and Seamus can do this -- you're still going to be able to activate your model and re-apply defensive stance (or whatever else you're using).

Yes, indeed, that was my point.

Defensive stance is good enough. Only one AP gives you three total flips for defense and the -2/-2 can easily be avoided by simply using it last. I've done the math in another thread but I'll say it again here: if Lilith or Perdita (or a buffed ronin for that matter, but this is less of a concern) enter into defensive stance then models with a combat of four (which includes the entire gremlin list except sommer) virtually can't hit them. If a df 8 model flips a 10 or higher then a cb 4 model can't hit it without the red joker. This means that Lilith or Perdita, in defensive stance, can not POSSIBLY be hit by gremlins 68% of the time...and they still probably don't get hit the other 32% of the time. All for 1 AP and a -2/-2 they didn't suffer.

So, while I agree that masters like Marcus would definitely benefit from this change, and that's a good thing, other masters could benefit far too much. However, if the entire thing (-2/-2 and all) lasted both turns, and they had to pay an AP for both turns, I would be cool with it. You could even make them two separate actions: one would be defensive stance just the way it is now, the other would be the one that lasts two turns.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Justin

[Phoenix]

doesnt defensive stance have to be the first ap used by a model in its activation? Thought that was in the FAQ

[Justin]

doesnt defensive stance have to be the first ap used by a model in its activation? Thought that was in the FAQ

There is no FAQ...yet.

And it's not in the errata.

I sure would like that change, though.

[acid_gaming]

I am in agreement with Lalochezia here. Increasing the effectiveness of defensive stance will hurt some crews more than it will help others out. Gremlins (which people already feel are a weaker crew) as the best example. It would widen the gap and unbalance the game in my view.

I would like to see actions like defensive stance and focus etc be made to be the first action a model takes. Like you say people use it last to negate the downsides.

[Justin]

I am in agreement with Lalochezia here. Increasing the effectiveness of defensive stance will hurt some crews more than it will help others out. Gremlins (which people already feel are a weaker crew) as the best example. It would widen the gap and unbalance the game in my view.

I would like to see actions like defensive stance and focus etc be made to be the first action a model takes. Like you say people use it last to negate the downsides.

Well, the downside of focus is that it takes 2 AP, so when you use it doesn't really matter.

And, while I think defensive stance is good enough now and doesn't need any improvement, I do see the need for an ability that could protect you on the next turn if you lose initiative.

Perhaps defensive stance could even be changed to: "(1) This model gets -2/-2 walk/charge and 2 +flips on defense for the rest of the current or subsequent turn, owning player's choice."

This way you could use it twice on one turn (spending 2 AP) and be protected for two turns. Or you could spend 1 AP and be protected for either the current or next turn, your choice.

But, of course, the thread starter's point wasn't just about defensive stance, it was about all defensive actions. I just make the biggest point of defensive stance because it is both one of the best defensive actions in the game, and one every model can use.

[newsun]

You could solve it even easier and just have them be in defensive stance until they move or take another action other than pass.

[Justin]

You could solve it even easier and just have them be in defensive stance until they move or take another action other than pass.

And since anyone who uses defensive stance uses it as their last action, that would essentially mean it lasts until the start of their next activation. Only it could last longer, if they choose to pass.

I just don't see the reasoning behind adding benefits to an ability that is already pretty good without any additional drawback.