Are the rules for this wonderful game going to be rewritten?

[TheBugKing]

Your English is just fine.

The second book will be a supplement with a lot of new and exciting things inside it.

Lies! All Lies!

(Not that there will be a bunch of new stuff but that exciting part is all bunk. We don't do fun around here!)

[FaveDave]

You old timers with the original rules are missing my main point: bringing new players to the game. As a new player, the rules are a HUGE barrier because of the poor writing style. I am a new player, so please consider my perspective. Without new players, the game will die.

Yes, I know all games undergo changes, witness 40k and Warmachine. WHich is exactly the point: THAT'S YOUR COMPETITION. If a new player looks at the rulebooks of 40k, WM. and Malifaux in the store -- guess which one is the worst, writing wise? Malifuax. Because it's new and hasn't had years of playing and revising. And because of some poor decisions in the original layout and writing style. Not to mention spelling and grammar mistakes, etc.

And all that's fine, but Malifaux has got to finish its growing pains quickly or it will disappear in the marketplace.

The barrier to making a successful minis game is a lot higher than when 40k and WM started, and Wyrd has to step up its game or disappear as so many other games have.

THEY HAVE TO MAKE THEIR RULES AT LEAST AS WELL-WRITTEN AS WARMACHINE. 40k rules talk down to the reader, but WM does not, so I think it's a better style.

You people are whining about "having to buy new rules." You should be whining about not being able to find opponents because the game disappears from shelves within the year.

Example: I was playing last night with another new player. We wanted to look up terrain and its effect on movement. No index, no easy way to find about how it affected movement. We skipped from section to section with no luck. After a minute, we gave up and made our own rules. WHy should we buy rules when we end up having to make up our own?

No index? Please. That alone qualifies it for a rewriting and re-issue. Other major issues:

- poor grammar

- bad sentence structure

- poor organization. All rules should be together and all fluff should be in a separate section.

- poor/no logic to structure of book. New edition needs to look at the the game with FRESH EYES like they've never seen it before. It should be easy to read in a logical progressive manner, and build on knowledge from previous chapters.

THe fanboi attitude is wonderful for keeping the core base alive, but is very destructive towards new players. And without new players, the game dies.

*sigh* most of you don't care about that, though...you enjoy the exclusionary attitude of "I learned the rules the hard way, so to hell with everyone else who wants it easy." Or "I'm scared to look at a new book."

Soon you'll be playing with your toys alone. Is that what you really want? If you really care about this game and want to share it with the world, then embrace revisions and new editions.

The solution is simple: hire professional writers, copy the WM format and style, and incorporate errata. Viola! More $$$ for Wyrd and more opponents for us!

[Hookers]

You old timers with the original \

Yes, I know all games undergo changes, witness 40k and Warmachine. WHich is exactly the point: THAT'S YOUR COMPETITION. If a new player looks at the rulebooks of 40k, WM. and Malifaux in the store -- guess which one is the worst, writing wise? Malifuax.

I don't really feel like getting into a full on discussion about why I disagree with most of what you said, but that statement isn't even close to true. 40k has the most hole-ridden, self contradictory rulebook ever written: not even a close competition.

Also the Malifaux book does have a pretty good index. I find it ironic that someone complaining about sentence structure, grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes makes the very same in his own writing.

Perhaps you are posting to genuinely improve the game, but it does not come off as that. Your experience differs greatly from mine, everyone at my LGS, and judging from the other posts entitled "Isn't this rulebook awesome?" and "does anyone play any game other than Malifaux anymore?" from many people across the country.

They have clarified many rules through an FAQ and Errata that are free to download and print, and as easy to carry with you as a rulebook is. I'm sure the costs of changing the print schedule of the current rulebook has been evaluated with the expected benefit of that change. They are also extremely active in answering questions on the forums, more so than any other company that I've seen.

Demanding things in all caps is different than constructive criticism. It's not a perfect rulebook, but many of your complaints are extremely subjective. For instance, many readers enjoy the fluff mixed in with the rules, and in any case it is not too difficult to thumb past the parts that don't interest you.

Honestly, I don't think that miniature companies are in competition against each other, but more in competition with each other against other hobbies that consumers might spend their disposable income on. How many games do you play? You mentioned Warmachines, 40k, and presumably Malifaux. I would say that the average miniature gamer plays 2-3 games. Therefore, they are more complements to each other, rather than substitutes. The more games being played at the LGS by the community the more fun it is for everyone playing any of the games, and the more likely those consumers are to play additional games rather than spend their money at the movies, or sporting events, etc.

Has anyone actually made any of the arguments you referred to?

"I'm scared to look at a new book"

"I had to learn the hard way so to hell with everyone else"

It's a little ridiculous. No one has any of those attitudes. I didn't find it hard to learn the game at all. Neither has anyone that I know. I think your perspective is very limited, and you should take it down a notch when and if you reply again.

Read the rulebook for Infinity and see how Malifaux compares.

Edit: I guess I changed my mind about getting into a discussion, didn't I? :soapbox:

Edited April 7, 2010 by Hookers

[Justin]

@FaveDave

I didn't miss your original point, I simply dismissed it.

"Old timers?" This game was released in August. There is no person who is not in some way affiliated with the company who could have possibly been playing this game for more than 7 months. Everyone is a new player at this point.

The attitude isn't, "I learned the rules the hard way so you should have to as well." That attitude is, "I learned the rules, and it wasn't very hard." Because, really, it wasn't very hard.

And while it's true that the grammar and sentence structure could be cleaned up a bit, the Malifaux rulebook is no worse than the 40k main book in that respect. And at least Wyrd is willing to clean up errors and irrationalities with errata, which Games Workshop clearly is not. If you believe otherwise, you simply have not sat down and really read the 40k main book. I could lay out a lot of errors that have never been addressed (and will if you would like me to) but there's really no point, as this is about Malifaux. As for Warmachine, I can't speak to that, as I do not play that game. But I do not see the logic in trying to make every book have the exact same format. It would seem to me that you are the one who is afraid to deal with different layouts.

Admittedly, an index would be nice. But that could easily be released online, or stuck in the back of subsequent editions. It hardly necessitates the rewrite of the entire system.

[PanzerKraken]

I'm sorry but people like to hate on the 40k rules just because they hate GW. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the current rules, they are extremely clear. Rule issues with 40k come from individual figure/army rules in codexes. GW does many bad things, but they do a very good job on the quality of their main rulebooks.

I have a shelf behind me with over 20+ miniature games I play. None have been as error prone so far as Malifaux, though I do love the game, the rulebook has been a mess. The 40k book on the other hand is up their along with the WM/Hordes books in pure clarity of rules without need of extensive errata or faqs. And I got books up here from some awful companies like Mongoose and Rackham which are pretty terrible when it comes to quality of rules.

Edited April 7, 2010 by PanzerKraken

[Kelmor]

You old timers with the original rules are missing my main point: bringing new players to the game. As a new player, the rules are a HUGE barrier because of the poor writing style. I am a new player, so please consider my perspective. Without new players, the game will die.

I dont think anyone is missing the point, I just dont think that is what they were talking about (at least I was not). I think you might be a tough overly harsh in your assessment of the rules language, I know there are places where it needed some clean up but the rules work really well, especially for a new company that has never made a miniatures game before. I know I was impressed with them.

Yes, I know all games undergo changes, witness 40k and Warmachine. WHich is exactly the point: THAT'S YOUR COMPETITION. If a new player looks at the rulebooks of 40k, WM. and Malifaux in the store -- guess which one is the worst, writing wise? Malifuax. Because it's new and hasn't had years of playing and revising. And because of some poor decisions in the original layout and writing style. Not to mention spelling and grammar mistakes, etc.

And all that's fine, but Malifaux has got to finish its growing pains quickly or it will disappear in the marketplace.

I am assuming that you actually like the product, and are writing from a perspective of tough love here.

I think you will find plenty of spelling and grammar mistakes in all of the books from the products you list above.

Malifaux if the first Miniatures game to come out in as long as I can remember that actually brought something new to the table. They have a lot going for them. I think you might put a lot more weight on the things you mention than is warranted.

The barrier to making a successful minis game is a lot higher than when 40k and WM started, and Wyrd has to step up its game or disappear as so many other games have.

THEY HAVE TO MAKE THEIR RULES AT LEAST AS WELL-WRITTEN AS WARMACHINE. 40k rules talk down to the reader, but WM does not, so I think it's a better style.

I appreciate what you are saying (or what I think you are trying to say) but you seem to forget that it has taken Warmachine almost 7 years to get where they are today. Go find a black and white copy of prime and then look over the Malifaux rules.

You people are whining about "having to buy new rules." You should be whining about not being able to find opponents because the game disappears from shelves within the year.

Example: I was playing last night with another new player. We wanted to look up terrain and its effect on movement. No index, no easy way to find about how it affected movement. We skipped from section to section with no luck. After a minute, we gave up and made our own rules. WHy should we buy rules when we end up having to make up our own?

No index? Please. That alone qualifies it for a rewriting and re-issue. Other major issues:

- poor grammar

- bad sentence structure

- poor organization. All rules should be together and all fluff should be in a separate section.

- poor/no logic to structure of book. New edition needs to look at the the game with FRESH EYES like they've never seen it before. It should be easy to read in a logical progressive manner, and build on knowledge from previous chapters.

Now a lot of this is your opinion of how things should have been done. I don't disagree with the intent of what you are saying but you could step down off the pulpit and communicate much better than you are

THe fanboi attitude is wonderful for keeping the core base alive, but is very destructive towards new players. And without new players, the game dies.

*sigh* most of you don't care about that, though...you enjoy the exclusionary attitude of "I learned the rules the hard way, so to hell with everyone else who wants it easy." Or "I'm scared to look at a new book."

Here I disagree with your assessment, additionally you get more insulting.

I think you are mistaking a common trait among humans. Anyone who was there "first" feels like they have tenure on those that come later. This is true in all things, not just gaming.

Soon you'll be playing with your toys alone. Is that what you really want? If you really care about this game and want to share it with the world, then embrace revisions and new editions.

I do not think that Wyrd is going to vanish any time soon. I think we will only see improvement. Expecting them to come out of the gate with a product that looks the same as what has come before them is foolish, and forgets where those other products have been.

The growth of a thing is what makes it interesting, what keeps it alive, you cannot expect a baby to come out and start winning wars, you need to allow for that baby to develop and grow. You do that by taking care of it, and nurturing it, and yes some times it requires tough love, I just think that you are a little early on that application

The solution is simple: hire professional writers, copy the WM format and style, and incorporate errata. Viola! More $$$ for Wyrd and more opponents for us!

Just like that?

You know the writers who can work for what Wyrd can afford? Why would Wyrd copy a style when they are clearly setting out on their own image?

I appreciate that you brought it back home with the errata, but I have to ask, what gamers out there dont look for errata when they start a new game?

Maybe that is the message missing from the book.

In concept you are correct, I think you are skipping a lot of time and many steps in your solution, and I think you will only see better and better products from Wyrd.

Please take this as intended, which is as a open and frank discussion with no malice intended

[Kelmor]

I'm sorry but people like to hate on the 40k rules just because they hate GW. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the current rules, they are extremely clear. Rule issues with 40k come from individual figure/army rules in codexes. GW does many bad things, but they do a very good job on the quality of their main rulebooks.

Thats kinda refining the thing a bit.

I think GW makes amazing miniatures and I wish that they made a game worthy of them.

There are currently situations where you can win the game by not allowing your opponent to deploy. That is a HUGE rules issue.

They talked about a guy winning a event that way in White Dwarf and how cool it was.

This is where GW fails at rules

[PanzerKraken]

Thats kinda refining the thing a bit.

I think GW makes amazing miniatures and I wish that they made a game worthy of them.

There are currently situations where you can win the game by not allowing your opponent to deploy. That is a HUGE rules issue.

They talked about a guy winning a event that way in White Dwarf and how cool it was.

This is where GW fails at rules

Yes but that was a very shocking and unexpected result. Not even the players involved plan on it, most of the people at the event had no clue either since nothing like that has ever happened before. It's also a very rare occurrence that is unlikely to happen often at all as it required very specific conditions to be met. It's not really a loop hole or anything that 99% of the player base would ever encounter since it requires such specific conditions to be met by both players.

No rule set is 100% concrete, but some are more solid than others or have at least had time to be refined to a point. There is a definite difference between a games core rules being solid, over simple issue involving specific armies or units. Lot of games I've seen have great rule sets, but the game would break down because they would poorly handle specific model rules and game balance issues related to them.

People asking about updated rulebooks and such are simply wanting a refined product with understandably takes time to make, a company can't simply pop out new books over night, nor afford to do such a thing most likely.

[Justin]

I'm sorry but people like to hate on the 40k rules just because they hate GW. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the current rules, they are extremely clear. Rule issues with 40k come from individual figure/army rules in codexes. GW does many bad things, but they do a very good job on the quality of their main rulebooks.

I have a shelf behind me with over 20+ miniature games I play. None have been as error prone so far as Malifaux, though I do love the game, the rulebook has been a mess. The 40k book on the other hand is up their along with the WM/Hordes books in pure clarity of rules without need of extensive errata or faqs. And I got books up here from some awful companies like Mongoose and Rackham which are pretty terrible when it comes to quality of rules.

The only difference between Malifaux and 40k error wise is that people are made aware of the errors in Malifaux by the errata. In 40k the errors are denied.

Now, I love 40k. I have no qualms with GW. I run 40k tournaments, I run a young generals league at my store, I own multiple armies...and it is all my experience with the game that has led me to see the many holes in the rules. And, for the most part, I simply don't point them out, and life proceeds as normal.

But, if I wanted to play strictly rules as written, it would be one of the worst games you have ever seen. Take, for example, the character rules as pertains to joining and leaving units. Pg. 48, "...if a character does not intend to (or can not) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the movement phase." Now, I'm sure you're aware that an independent character can not join a vehicle and form a unit with it, and I also assume that you know that when deploying out of a transport, you deploy the squad within 2" of it. So, if you have an independent character inside of a vehicle that moved...he can't get out.

That's just one example from the main book. There are a ton of issues from individual army books (do deth rollers affect vehicles? can you gate of infinity out of combat?) that are totally unresolved, and could have easily been done so with a simple FAQ. And, without the individual army rules, the main rules are no use. You can't play 40k without models. Also, keep in mind, that while 40k has army books, Malifaux has the core rules and the rules for every model in the same book. So, an errata to the Malifaux book could pertain to the core rules, or to an individual model.

All that said, again, I love 40k and understand that mistakes happen, but it is no more or less prone to them than Malifaux.

[PanzerKraken]

The only difference between Malifaux and 40k error wise is that people are made aware of the errors in Malifaux by the errata. In 40k the errors are denied.

They do issue errata and faqs on a regular basis, they don't deny nothing.

But, if I wanted to play strictly rules as written, it would be one of the worst games you have ever seen. Take, for example, the character rules as pertains to joining and leaving units. Pg. 48, "...if a character does not intend to (or can not) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the movement phase." Now, I'm sure you're aware that an independent character can not join a vehicle and form a unit with it, and I also assume that you know that when deploying out of a transport, you deploy the squad within 2" of it. So, if you have an independent character inside of a vehicle that moved...he can't get out.

I do know this, and really, it is nothing wrong with the rules, it's simply playing as written. I can name countless games where similar odd things exist for the sake of following the rules. Some will see it as an error, some just see it as them ignoring it I guess. It tends to just fall into trappings of personal preference. Not everything in Malifaux makes logical sense, I don't expect it too, but often things will fall down the rule as written territory.

You get difference in games which cause differences in how they are approached. In skirmish games specifically, you have a much more detailed ruleset generally than a wargame, so you encounter lot more unique situations that will get simply ignored with games like Flames of War of Warhammers. One thing you also get is that sometimes rulings tend to sometimes be made on the side of trying to make sense or be "realistic" to the situation, which ends up with lots of errors and errata. While you got a game like say, AT-43 where stuff wont make sense, but instead of issuing an errata, they will basically have you stick to RAW.

Malifaux, I can understand the situation it's in because it's new and first time for the developers, so the way they are handling it makes sense, but to others it might not be seen that way. Already have seen hold outs because of what they perceive as "quality issues" for example.

[WookieeGunner]

I'm sorry but people like to hate on the 40k rules just because they hate GW. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the current rules, they are extremely clear. Rule issues with 40k come from individual figure/army rules in codexes. GW does many bad things, but they do a very good job on the quality of their main rulebooks.

Although I can't say anything specific about Malifaux's rules at the moment (my copy is on order at my FLGS) I will point out that arguably the largest 40k tournament in the US (and therefore something I think wouldn't fall under your "hate GW" grouping) has 20 pages of FAQ for the 40k Main Rulebook. In my opinion that is an awful lot of FAQ for a extremely clear set of rules.

[PanzerKraken]

Although I can't say anything specific about Malifaux's rules at the moment (my copy is on order at my FLGS) I will point out that arguably the largest 40k tournament in the US (and therefore something I think wouldn't fall under your "hate GW" grouping) has 20 pages of FAQ for the 40k Main Rulebook. In my opinion that is an awful lot of FAQ for a extremely clear set of rules.

And majority of it boils down to ruling as written in the book or common sense. Such a thing can happen to any game as large as that when it goes to such a high competitive standard. Sadly the game has gone off into deep "hardcore" gaming territory with a more sports like atmosphere. It's like how you have a simple game like Baseball, yet there is a giant manual which is essentially a faq for it used by the MLB. The rules can fit on one page, yet you got a small bible of rulings to go with it? It's sad really how the community has shaped that game though, so much of the fun was sucked out of it to make it seem more like a sport by being a "competitive tourny" game.

Errata is a different thing as well and more in line with the original posts author's concerns. Malifaux has around 100 models.... currently about 69 of them have errata of some form on them.

[Hookers]

Not to detract from your point, but if you've ever had to teach the rules of baseball to a girl you'd know its not really a simple game either, haha

My comment about 40k was simply trying to be an example. Obviously someone coming on and posting "I'm a new player, cater to me!" and "MAKE THIS GAME LIKE WARMAHORDES!" is not being constructive

In my opinion, Malifaux has the best written rules of any game that I play. There are still unclear things, and abilities that can be taken multiple ways, but their dedication to answering questions on the forums more than make up for it. Any questions asked of GW fall on deaf ears until months after a codex comes out and a FAQ is released, and after that it is forever hold your peace.

[Justin]

They do issue errata and faqs on a regular basis, they don't deny nothing.

But those rarely resolve the biggest issues. Deth rollers and gate of infinity being two of the largest examples.

I do know this, and really, it is nothing wrong with the rules, it's simply playing as written.

By that same logic, there was really nothing wrong with Malifaux either. I do appreciate the level of involvement they put into the errata though.

[Sin City Snowman]

Ultimately, I think that the fact that both the errata and FAQ are available Malifaux is really the most important thing. While a "cleaned up" version of the book is not a bad idea in the long run, I don't see why they should rewrite and layout the rulebook when the game came out less than a year ago.

For example, take a look at Warmachine (since it was mentioned earlier), the original Prime was released in 2003. It was four years later that they finally updated those rules with the information from the online FAQ and errata with the release of Prime Remix. Before then, players had to look online for this information, plus the company would publish the most recent updates in the next book when it was released. Every single book that they released before Mk II came out contains multiple pages of errata and FAQs for the previous books. If anything, I think that this would be a better route to take instead of releasing a "new" version of the rulebook.

[Keltheos]

But those rarely resolve the biggest issues. Deth rollers and gate of infinity being two of the largest examples.

Hey, that latest Ork revision cleared up the Deth Rolla question. (aaahahaa)

[Justin]

Hey, that latest Ork revision cleared up the Deth Rolla question. (aaahahaa)

So it did! Haven't checked their site since some time around Christmas.

Now, if they just had a look a Gate of Infinity...

Not that that many people play space marines anyway.

[Kelmor]

Ultimately, I think that the fact that both the errata and FAQ are available Malifaux is really the most important thing. While a "cleaned up" version of the book is not a bad idea in the long run, I don't see why they should rewrite and layout the rulebook when the game came out less than a year ago.

For example, take a look at Warmachine (since it was mentioned earlier), the original Prime was released in 2003. It was four years later that they finally updated those rules with the information from the online FAQ and errata with the release of Prime Remix. Before then, players had to look online for this information, plus the company would publish the most recent updates in the next book when it was released. Every single book that they released before Mk II came out contains multiple pages of errata and FAQs for the previous books. If anything, I think that this would be a better route to take instead of releasing a "new" version of the rulebook.

Actually they only printed the errata in Escalation.

The issue with printing errata is that if you make an additional change to a rule, you have to make the change in 2 places now (or more depending on when the update is made)

Miniatures games rules are fluid, they must remain so to react to growing competition and evolving play skill.

[Q'iq'el]

The only improvement to the current FAQ/Errata system I wish for is an Errata that quotes changing rules whole.

I like to print my errata, cut the changes out and attach them to the pages of the rulebook in the right places. In current format it isn't exactly possible.

If the print size and font were identical to the original manual (so that where possible you can paste the errata over the relevant parts of the book) it'd be even better, but I suppose it may be quite a bit of extra work to do.

[Grim]

Damn! I just bought the rulebook last week and am one of the 9 of 10 who relies on other people to teach them the game! hehe... I'll start reading the rulebook, and print out the errata, and figure out a way to cross-reference without having to go back and forth between both!

[Sin City Snowman]

Actually they only printed the errata in Escalation.

Really? Thought I saw something in at least one of the later books. Ah well, still think the fact that they didn't reprint Prime for all those years shows that it really shouldn't be that big an issue with the Malifaux rulebook.

The issue with printing errata is that if you make an additional change to a rule, you have to make the change in 2 places now (or more depending on when the update is made)

Too true, plus it also takes up space in a future book for information that is already available online. Personally I'd rather just print up the PDF of the FAQ and errata myself.

[Nathan Caroland]

Hey folks,

Appreciate the thoughts, concerns, critisims, critique and suggestions. We've already addressed this in here if you care to dig back through, but we'll be closing this thread as every few weeks someone new joins and wants to add their thoughts and 'me too' to the thread which just turns it into a rehash.

Again, your thoughts are heard, and appreciated.