scared of malifaux 2.0

[Jonas Albrecht]

These are all perfect questions to ask a gremlin.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?38936-Ask-a-Gremlin

I don't know, doesn't sound like they'll get a serious answer.

[Justin]

I don't know, doesn't sound like they'll get a serious answer.

I said they were perfect questions. I didn't say there would be perfect answers.

[Dumb Luck]

I think the Gremlin is trying his best.

[i_was_like_you]

Well, they don't have to, and personally, I doubt that's in the cards.

Why not? I'd rather see more avatars to present more options with the current masters, than to keep getting more and more and more masters.

That's not to say that I don't like the new options we've gotten with the 10T masters, but rushing out new crews every year or every other year isn't exactly optimal.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Why not? I'd rather see more avatars to present more options with the current masters, than to keep getting more and more and more masters.

That's not to say that I don't like the new options we've gotten with the 10T masters, but rushing out new crews every year or every other year isn't exactly optimal.

You're framing it as though it's something Wyrd must do, just because the option exists for a master to use multiple avatars. I'm simply stating that if Wyrd isn't happy with the sales of Avatars, they may not try for a second batch (NOTE: to anyone reading this as me attacking Wyrd, I'm not, ****ing deal with it). What you or I would rather see is hilariously irrelevant to how Wyrd does business. In any case, it's not an either or. I don't think they need to do another 20 avatars at once, or 6 new masters. Hell, they could stop doing the book format altogether, and just release the story packs we've been hearing about for nearly a year.

I said they were perfect questions. I didn't say there would be perfect answers.

Sounds like a terrible way to waste my time, then.

[i_was_like_you]

Who dumped in your bowl of Malifos?

[Jonas Albrecht]

Who dumped in your bowl of Malifos?

No one.

[dgraz]

Who dumped in your bowl of Malifos?

Jonas takes his job as a Guild Officer very seriously. Including the patented Guild lack of humor. Such frivolous things do not befit a true Guild Authority. Humor is for lesser beings.

(In case of internet-itis: I kid, no personal attack intended.)

[Jonas Albrecht]

Jonas takes his job as a Guild Officer very seriously. Including the patented Guild lack of humor. Such frivolous things do not befit a true Guild Authority. Humor is for lesser beings.

Eh, I've proven that false plenty of times. In any case, this isn't about me. So unless we're super excited for the return of the term "cheerleaders", let's just focus on the damn game.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Jonas Albrecht

[Ausplosions]

Eh, I've proven that false plenty of times. In any case, this isn't about me. So unless we're super excited for the return of the term "cheerleaders", let's just focus on the damn game.

Why so serious?

Cheer up fella.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Why so serious?

Cheer up fella.

I could say the same to you regarding your behavior towards rules questions.

[Ausplosions]

I could say the same to you regarding your behavior towards rules questions.

I love you.

[Jonas Albrecht]

I love you.

So does Tuesday.

[Kadeton]

Nothing brightens my day like watching someone grumpy get dogpiled with hugs.

[nilus]

I love you.

I know.

[Dustcrusher]

Uh...who's scruffy looking?

I'm baffled by the idea that 25 Masters (with Avatars for most of them) and 6 Henchmen aren't enough for some folks. What would be enough? 30? 40? No snark here- I'm serious.

[notmikehill]

I honestly don't understand the whining here.

If you don't want things to change, participate in playtests and offer up valid opinions. Seeing as how a good fraction of you in this thread are the players who seem to have the most posting time, just offer up some time to playtest and change things the way you want them to change. If a rework of the rules are coming, you'll know that you helped better the game you seem to care so much about rather than complaining about it.

If you want book one models to have an increase in power. Do so during the playtesting if/when it comes.

As for going back on topic, I think that we won't see anything too crazy of an overhaul of the rules system. Perhaps they'll just spruce up a lot of the cards abilities that are the same, but worded differently (Like Harmless/Irresistable) and clean up the language on the abilities to make the game easier to understand and have less of an issue with determining rules.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Uh...who's scruffy looking?

I'm baffled by the idea that 25 Masters (with Avatars for most of them) and 6 Henchmen aren't enough for some folks. What would be enough? 30? 40? No snark here- I'm serious.

I'm not really in the "more masters!" camp myself, but that's an odd way of looking at it. Most people seem to focus on one or two factions. While I'm sure there are some, I don't think a lot of player's faction preference puts them at a selection of 25 masters and 6 henchmen.

EDIT: notmikehill, I have no idea who you are talking to, but I'm not certain if you are suggesting that people can simply choose to include themselves in playtesting.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Harmless and Irresistible are not the same. While it is true both require you to make a Wp > 12 check to successfully target the model who has the effects that is where the similarity ends.

Harmless only remains in effect until the model under it's effects does anything other than walk or pass. Additionally there are traits that can ignore it, or get helped or hindered by it, and there are traits which can just ignore it.

Irresistible is a static Wp > 12 check, but it never goes away regardless of whatever actions the affected model takes, and it cannot be ignored by anything.

[i_was_like_you]

Irresistible is a static Wp > 12 check, but it never goes away regardless of whatever actions the affected model takes, and it cannot be ignored by anything.

Yet...

Should Constructs, Undead, Spirits, Nightmares, Soulless, etc. in the non-living camp really have to check for being turned on just to see whether or not they can target a model deemed sexy?

I think Irresistible should be structured a bit more like Terrifying, maybe including a TN (to determine just how Irresistible the model happens to be), and include the same kinds of terms and conditions. As a reference, here they both are:

Irresistible Enemy Models must win a Wp 12 Duel when targeting this model with an attack or the Action fails. This may not be ignored by any Talent.

Terrifying forces living models without the Terrifying Ability to make a Morale Duel when they:

Begin their activation in a Terrifying effect's range.

End an Action in a Terrifying effect's range.

Enter a Terrifying effect's range and do not have either the Flight or Float Ability.

Declare a Charge targeting a model with the Terrifying Ability.

The range of a model's Terrifying Ability is that Terrifying model's longest melee range.

If the model wins the Morale Duel, it ignores that Terrifying effect for as long as it remains in that effect's Terrifying range and the effect exists. If a Terrifying effect ends and later resumes, models within the range of the resumed effect will have to perform Morale Duels again.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Irresistible should be a Morale Duel (although being shy around hotties might make them want to run away), but I do think it should be more like Terrifying. Line by line:

Irresistible forces living models without the Irresistible Ability to make a WP Duel when they: [Non-living models shouldn't care how sexy the model is, and other Irresistible models should have that whole cat fight jealousy thing going on. Scary models aren't scary to other scary models.]

Begin their activation in an Irresistible effect's range. [Because we all do dumb things trying to impress those we find appealling.]

End an Action in an Irresistible effect's range. [Again, we do dumb things, but as I don't want it to be a Morale Duel, we can omit this one.]

Enter an Irresistible effect's range and do not have either the Flight or Float Ability. [If flying and floating allow a model to be too far away to get scared, it should be the same for being attracted.]

Declare a Charge targeting a model with the Irresistible Ability. [Charging does include attacking, so it does fall under the original rules for Irresistible.]

The range of a model's Irresistible Ability is that Irresistible model's longest melee range. [So, they're only as scary as how far their teeth and fangs can reach? With a lot of them, those aren't even the scariest part about them. In the case of Irresistible, though, maybe making it more like Cassandra's Celebrity, where it instead affects the attacker so that when they close to melee range, and can recognize her, they can no longer make melee attacks without passing the WP Duel.]

If the model wins the WP Duel, it ignores that Irresistible effect for as long as it remains in that effect's Irresistible range and the effect exists. If a Irresistible effect ends and later resumes, models within the range of the resumed effect will have to perform WP Duels again. [Once a model has overcome its lust for the model enough to try to kill it, it shouldn't have to test for the same effect again, under the same conditions of Terrifying.]

EDIT: notmikehill, I have no idea who you are talking to, but I'm not certain if you are suggesting that people can simply choose to include themselves in playtesting.

I know they did a fairly open call to playtesting for Puppet Wars. Even though I was cleared for participation, the group I had available at the time flaked on it, so I didn't get to contribute as much as I would have wanted. [Read: I read some threads, made some suggestions, but didn't have any results to report.]

I'd love to participate in playtesting for a possible Malifaux 2.0, but, unless they do another open call for volunteers, I doubt I'll get that kind of chance.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I disagree. I think Irresistible is fine as is. If we were trying to extend the rules so that they made a logical fluff based sense on every rule created across all the traits it would be disastrous.

Down that way lies anything not living being immune to poison and other wacky rules exceptions.

[Ausplosions]

I disagree. I think Irresistible is fine as is. If we were trying to extend the rules so that they made a logical fluff based sense on every rule created across all the traits it would be disastrous.

Down that way lies anything not living being immune to poison and other wacky rules exceptions.

+1 to this.

We do not need a massive amount of rules based heavily around the fluff.

And anyway in a world where a teddy bear can be made into a 10ft tall killing machine full of hatred, why cant a robot appreciate the allure of a purdy lady.

[i_was_like_you]

I disagree. I think Irresistible is fine as is. If we were trying to extend the rules so that they made a logical fluff based sense on every rule created across all the traits it would be disastrous.

Down that way lies anything not living being immune to poison and other wacky rules exceptions.

Irresistible, as written, is a bit too powerful. Terrifying only checks once per instance, and does not affect non-living models. Irresistible checks for each and every attack, from every model, with no exceptions.

Would you rather I opted for the opposite suggestion, that Terrifying be re-written to be more like Irresistible?

Terrifying Enemy Models must win a # Morale Duel when targeting this model with an attack or the Action fails. This may not be ignored by any Talent.

As someone has mentioned before, acids could fall under the simplified category of poisons.

+1 to this.

We do not need a massive amount of rules based heavily around the fluff.

And anyway in a world where a teddy bear can be made into a 10ft tall killing machine full of hatred, why cant a robot appreciate the allure of a purdy lady.

Really now? Most of the rules are based around the fluff. It's the fluff factor that makes the game so enjoyable. What takes away from that enjoyment are the inconsistencies among similar abilities.

Someone mentioned in this thread how Scout and Shambling are the same thing, but have two different names. What's more, Scout, on a stat card, just says Scout, but Shambling has the whole text printed out.

Irresistible and Terrifying are effectively aiming for the same thing: Making a model think twice about engaging another model, based on emotions, whether lust or fear. Where Terrifying allows a model to overcome its initial aversion, Irresistible says that a model is too enamored to hurt the target, each time it tries to swing. That right there is beyond backwards.

[Lucidicide]

Irresistible, as written, is a bit too powerful. Terrifying only checks once per instance, and does not affect non-living models. Irresistible checks for each and every attack, from every model, with no exceptions.

Why are you comparing Irresistible and Terrifying? Irresistible is a defensive ability, and a powerful one because it cannot be ignored. Terrifying is an offensive ability, and a powerful one because it causes models to fall back.

The true comparisons, if we must compare defense to offense, are Irresistible to Anathema and Harmless to Terrifying. They are different categories of the same type of ability.

Is Irresistible powerful? Yes. That's the intention. In itself it is not too powerful (Anathema is substantially more powerful). The key is making sure it's on models that are appropriately costed.

[Odin1981]

i_ was_like_you the problem with what you posted about irresistable is that it would further continue the non living crew composition we have had become dominant from around book 2 on. I honestly don't feel irressistable is too bad granted it would be annoying on masters all the time and such but there really aren't that many models that have it (off the top of my head performers, liluto, nekima, azoraida and I believe that's it).