shared deliver message issue

[arkno]

my opponent during a game killed his own master so that he could deliver a message but i could not any ruling about this since i find it most unfair...

[Gruesome]

yep.

[nilus]

Perfectly legal and fair

The problem is that your Master is, in most cases, the single most important model on the table so its rarely worth it to kill it.

[The Godlyness]

Should have killed your own. Then tried completing your schems for the win.

[arkno]

well it is not really fair but whatever i guess.

[WindlordRyu]

It's 100% fair since you can do exactly the same thing.

[baskinders]

So the rule about selecting a target for an attack in the rules manual that says you can target any model except your crew's Master or the model making the attack got changed then?

[Headcase2]

There's no such rule in the RM, it's from the old book.

[Ausplosions]

So the rule about selecting a target for an attack in the rules manual that says you can target any model except your crew's Master or the model making the attack got changed then?

You are reading from an old, OOP book.

[baskinders]

You are reading from an old, OOP book.

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant, it obviously got changed from book 1 of rules to currently used book of rules .

Shame it did get changed, cause it doesn't feel right to me. It's like playing chess but taking your King of the board before your opponent can get a check-mate, seems like bad form...

[Ausplosions]

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant, it obviously got changed from book 1 of rules to currently used book of rules .

Shame it did get changed, cause it doesn't feel right to me. It's like playing chess but taking your King of the board before your opponent can get a check-mate, seems like bad form...

The end result is actually more like taking both your King AND Queen off the board. Yeah, you deny them the strategy, but you have lost your most powerful model

[magicpockets]

Sorry to hear you're not happy with this, but it is part of Malifaux gameplay. In the recent ETC in the UK I took Levi with Collodi in shared deliver a message and in turn one killed Levi so my opponent couldn't deliver the message (as you can't do it to an in crew Henchman), then used Collodi to deliver the message to Kirai, and then - as he had Betrayed by Spirits where he had to kill Levi or Collodi with a spirit - used the rest of my marionette activations to kill Collodi (and then the Marionettes got sacrificed).

Not a fun game of Malifaux for sure, but with 4vp in the bag and him only able to get 2vp from his last scheme, that's the big leagues I'm afraid. *wink*

[Mike3838]

Please Wyrd - is this really what you intend the game to be?

Strategies and schemes need some serious rethinking.

[TranquilitiesEnd]

Please Wyrd - is this really what you intend the game to be?

Strategies and schemes need some serious rethinking.

I don't feel that way at all. I think the idea that your crew, or your master, doesn't need to survive to complete the goal is brilliant. Fluff wise, When I 'hire' my crew, and tell what I want done, I dont care if they die doing it, as long as it gets done and the faction prospers.

[Gruesome]

I don't feel that way at all. I think the idea that your crew, or your master, doesn't need to survive to complete the goal is brilliant. Fluff wise, When I 'hire' my crew, and tell what I want done, I dont care if they die doing it

That's cool...

I think that other people might just feel that its sort of against the spirit to just kill your own models so they cannot be involved in a scheme.

Deliver a message fails because they are dead? What could the message have been that your faction is truly better off that a master is DEAD, rather than someone said something to them?

Steal relic? Why isn't it automatic to take the relic from a corpse rather than having to get it from a living master?

Again, play how you want and you are obviously in the rules as they currently stand, but IMO its a stretch to say that killing your own models is the same as "doesn't need to survive to complete the goal".

[naz9]

Welcome to Malifaux.. It tweaks your Nugget! You have to get your brain around that the game itself is a great way to unlearn traditional ways of wargaming...you'll learn to use, like, and expect that everything and anything can happen.

[Q'iq'el]

Deliver a message fails because they are dead? What could the message have been that your faction is truly better off that a master is DEAD, rather than someone said something to them?

The message is so dark and dreadful the very reality of Malifaux starts to reflect its horrible purpose... with that much magic and spiritual energy trapped in Malifaux, the words of the message resonate and the threats and graphic descriptions manifest, driving the addressee and his minions crazy. In the moment of madness, just to stop the horrors, one of them pulls the trigger on his boss.

Steal relic? Why isn't it automatic to take the relic from a corpse rather than having to get it from a living master?

Them old Malifaux gadgets... each weirder and darker than the other. Take for example the Soulstone Music Box found still in its protective case in the Quarantine Zone. Incredible craftsmanship, but the idiot who fount it broke the case, the thing latched to his hand and started to play its haunted lullaby fed with his blood. He sold it all right, made a small fortune of it... but he had to chop off his right arm to detach it.

The buyer was prepared of course, with a slave to feed his new trinket, while the craftsmen prepare a new protective case. This turned out harder than expected and the device claimed three lives already, while to leave it without fresh stream of blood would make it wither and die within minutes.

[DeleteAccount]

Though I do agree the rules be the rules. I would rather they change the schemes and strategies to avoid the "no play" situations. Simple example, deliver message to enemy master, if dead, deliver it to henchmen, if dead, deliver to highest costing minion currently alive and so on. Yes, you can still self nuke all your band, but it becomes quite a bit harder to do a total cancel scenario. Probably taking out the turn into soulstone rule or refining it would be a good idea so it isn't an auto screw of slaughter.

[baskinders]

Sorry to hear you're not happy with this, but it is part of Malifaux gameplay. In the recent ETC in the UK I took Levi with Collodi in shared deliver a message and in turn one killed Levi so my opponent couldn't deliver the message (as you can't do it to an in crew Henchman), then used Collodi to deliver the message to Kirai, and then - as he had Betrayed by Spirits where he had to kill Levi or Collodi with a spirit - used the rest of my marionette activations to kill Collodi (and then the Marionettes got sacrificed).

Not a fun game of Malifaux for sure, but with 4vp in the bag and him only able to get 2vp from his last scheme, that's the big leagues I'm afraid. *wink*

This is pretty much my point. I've played miniature games for about 20 years and I think the general Malifaux mechanics are great, intuitive and fun (my only main gripe is with the use of the same word for multiple meanings i.e. attack...). However, I was thinking about attending a tournament of Malifaux at some point as at the moment I generally play with two mates for a bit of fun, but after reading this I don't think I ever would. If the game, on a competitive level, encourages a player to set up their pieces on the table only to perform one action and then remove their pieces from the table so the game ends while their ahead, that doesn't sound like a fun way to spend an afternoon... as you said.

To use a different analogy to the chess one, it's like going to play baseball, batting first, hitting a home run, then taking your bat and ball and going home a "winner".

Anyway, I don't really think it will affect me at all because if anyone in my gaming group was to pull that they'd probably be "uninvited" to the next gaming session

[magicpockets]

This is pretty much my point. I've played miniature games for about 20 years and I think the general Malifaux mechanics are great, intuitive and fun (my only main gripe is with the use of the same word for multiple meanings i.e. attack...). However, I was thinking about attending a tournament of Malifaux at some point as at the moment I generally play with two mates for a bit of fun, but after reading this I don't think I ever would. If the game, on a competitive level, encourages a player to set up their pieces on the table only to perform one action and then remove their pieces from the table so the game ends while their ahead, that doesn't sound like a fun way to spend an afternoon... as you said.

To use a different analogy to the chess one, it's like going to play baseball, batting first, hitting a home run, then taking your bat and ball and going home a "winner".

Anyway, I don't really think it will affect me at all because if anyone in my gaming group was to pull that they'd probably be "uninvited" to the next gaming session

It really depends on the tournament to be honest, there's very few hyper competitive tournaments where things like this would be deemed "reasonable" (GTs and Masters mainly). But it IS part of Malifaux I'm afraid, same as completing Treasure Hunt in one activation (with the Treasure back in my deployment zone) and 4VPs from Shared Destroy the Evidence in one activation.

Some times you play for fun, and some times you play to win. The way I see it is if you're playing to win, don;t be a d*ck about it and everyone's happy

[Lungboy]

I'm guessing that Levi/Collodi example would have been pretty easy to prevent from happening, purely by taking a scheme that the opponent had no direct control over, like Stake A Claim instead of that spirit kill scheme.

[Q'iq'el]

Though I do agree the rules be the rules. I would rather they change the schemes and strategies to avoid the "no play" situations. Simple example, deliver message to enemy master, if dead, deliver it to henchmen, if dead, deliver to highest costing minion currently alive and so on. Yes, you can still self nuke all your band, but it becomes quite a bit harder to do a total cancel scenario. Probably taking out the turn into soulstone rule or refining it would be a good idea so it isn't an auto screw of slaughter.

Malifaux Strategies and Schemes tend to reflect the fluff to a degree though. And Malifaux is a treacherous and a dark place where you should expect the most underhanded tactics to happen. And you are given tools to deal with some of those too, you just have to take the possibility of them happening into consideration (he won't be able to kill his master if you teleport, bury or paralyze his minions away etc.).

I understand the surprise and possible frustration when it happens to you for the first time. But if you are still surprised by it in your next game, maybe you should try adapting to the new ruleset before trying to change it?

[DeleteAccount]

Malifaux Strategies and Schemes tend to reflect the fluff to a degree though. And Malifaux is a treacherous and a dark place where you should expect the most underhanded tactics to happen. And you are given tools to deal with some of those too, you just have to take the possibility of them happening into consideration (he won't be able to kill his master if you teleport, bury or paralyze his minions away etc.).

I understand the surprise and possible frustration when it happens to you for the first time. But if you are still surprised by it in your next game, maybe you should try adapting to the new ruleset before trying to change it?

Last time I checked fluff does not equal rules. Also, it ain't fun, pure and simple, even if it's perfectly legal, to do one of those plays. And since I doubt quite a bit Wyrd intended for these sort of shenanigans to possibly be the norm, I'll just patiently wait for the obligatory strategy and scheme reevalutation the game needs.

Also, going from pure fluff, I'n not seeing how all those rotten belles got a hankering for bitting Seamus down for the sake of not getting "ze message".

[Lungboy]

And since I doubt quite a bit Wyrd intended for these sort of shenanigans to possibly be the norm

Obviously we won't know unless we get an official response, but i wouldn't be surprised if they did intend for this to be allowed, otherwise they wouldn't have removed the rule about not being able to target your master.

[Mike3838]

Since a master can Drain Souls on himself, saying you can stop a master suicide by targeting minions is incorrect.

Deliver message + Kill Protoge + Steal Relic, or Grudge, or Frame for Murder.

My enemy can deprive me of my full 8 VP in one action, and there's *NOTHING* I can do to stop it.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

I'm guessing that Levi/Collodi example would have been pretty easy to prevent from happening, purely by taking a scheme that the opponent had no direct control over, like Stake A Claim instead of that spirit kill scheme.

So the answer is to *never ever* choose Grudge, or Kill Protoge, or Frame for Murder, or Steal Relic, and to *always* reflip Deliver a Message? Problem solved, enemy has no control over your schemes.

If the only way to avoid the problem and ensure fun games is to not play those schemes, they should be removed from the book or, as is being suggested, changed.

[Headcase2]

My enemy can deprive me of my full 8 VP in one action, and there's *NOTHING* I can do to stop it.

Play nicer opponents? If a player pulls that over here he gets a warning, if he does it again he won't find a game the next time he shows up. If he pulls this on one of my tournaments I give him an off-the-books warning. If he doesn't get the message he will probably win the tournament but doesn't get invited to the next one. It's all about player mentality, and a willingness not to abuse broken rules because technically you're not cheating.