Malifaux 2.0 rumours?

[Alviaran]

For the anti-symbol people, I have a question (and something to point out).

First off, how often you play the model shouldn't come into it. If the model has abilities that appear only a couple other models tops or is unique to it, no symbol. Text. If it has a pretty common ability, it gets a symbol. That is the idea here. So the fact that you don't play a given model often shouldn't come into it since it is a game-wide symbol that appears in most, if not all, factions to some extent. Thus, even if you don't know it, the chances of your opponent knowing it goes up.

Second, a question. Obviously, if they did a 2.0 and redesigned or even just rebalanced cards, we need "decks" such as what WM did to let those with models update their entire faction in one go. So, if there was a reference card in there that showed the symbols (and then, even better, gave a pg reference in the rulebook), would that be fine to convert over, to get used to it? It's an aide that quickly falls away as you play. Trust me, I know that from WM. When I got back in and converted all my cards over, I ordered extra of the reference cards. I honestly do not use ANY of them now. Hell, I wasn't using them 99% of the time within a month (of playing once a week). Properly done symbols are very easy to learn with even casual use.

As a related idea, if you did this, going forward, Master boxes could get the reference card as well. Thus, two brand new people start up and get the rulebook and a couple crew boxes to start playing. They each have a reference card to use while learning the game. And because of the idea that the reference card gets pg references on it, they can quickly look up the rule without even having to use the index for that part if all they need is "What does Immune to Influence do?"

Now we have packaged a learning tool (because that is what it really is, not a forever reference, but a tool to help you learn and then discard it) in with every deck of cards (meaning every veteran should have it) and every Master box (so every newbie after the transition should have it).

Also, the only thing I have seen as a legitimate argument against symbols is the ability to find it because they cannot be alphabetized. The general feeling from anti-symbol I am still getting largely boils down to "I don't like them" rather than a practical reason. As others noted, you already have a BUNCH of symbols in the game so just not liking symbols and preferring text is not a good enough reason to discount the idea.

[Dracomax]

by your logic, the only thing i've seen as a legitimate argument for symbols is "i like them"

we do not have a bunch of symbols. we have less than 10. you want to expand it to 30 or more. that's a much better reason to discount the idea.

edit: here's the problem. you are dismissing legitimate concerns by saying they don't bother you, and so are irrelevant. that is the exact reason I will never buy anything by soda pop miniatures. that's why I quit games and burn bridges. that is why people refuse to go back to restaurants. it's why people can't talk politics in polite company. it's bad argument, bad customer service, and only serves to drive people apart.

edit 2: it is a problem picking up new models. I can't count the times we have had to look up a new common ability because either neither person had used it, or hadn't used it in a long time. the fact it isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a real and valid problem for others.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Dracomax

[Adran]

Second, a question. Obviously, if they did a 2.0 and redesigned or even just rebalanced cards, we need "decks" such as what WM did to let those with models update their entire faction in one go. So, if there was a reference card in there that showed the symbols (and then, even better, gave a pg reference in the rulebook), would that be fine to convert over, to get used to it? It's an aide that quickly falls away as you play. Trust me, I know that from WM. When I got back in and converted all my cards over, I ordered extra of the reference cards. I honestly do not use ANY of them now. Hell, I wasn't using them 99% of the time within a month (of playing once a week). Properly done symbols are very easy to learn with even casual use.

As a related idea, if you did this, going forward, Master boxes could get the reference card as well. Thus, two brand new people start up and get the rulebook and a couple crew boxes to start playing. They each have a reference card to use while learning the game. And because of the idea that the reference card gets pg references on it, they can quickly look up the rule without even having to use the index for that part if all they need is "What does Immune to Influence do?"

I find most of the rules discussions on the forums can be answered by reading the exact text of an ability.

It might be as simple as it only affecting a Target, or enemy model, but even when the text is there people still don't read them.

Abilities which don't have any text will still keep you having to go to the exact rules.

I understand that what you are suggesting trying to replace is things like Immune to influence which isn't explained on the cards with red squiggle. It may be that the space is better used in explainign other abilities. I'm not quite sure how much space you save over the inconvienece of having to learn symbols. If there aren't many symbols, you aren't saving much space, but too many and its very daunting to learn. Show a new player a card that says Immune to influence, and the might not know what it will actually do, but can get an idea. Red Squiggle doesn't help them at all, and with out the reference card they have no clue.

I've been playing longer than most of the models have existed (Early book one. I still remember the excitment in finding out what the "birdlife" in Malifaux looked like when they released the Austringer) and I can't tell you which is the pulse and which is the Aura symbol as they are too alike for me to really rememebr the difference. (sure one is in a circle and 1 ins in brackets) I can tell them apart in context most of the time without an issue. And I typically have a good memory for games, I can tell you most of the models stats in the game and a lot of the spells and abilities from memory, but symbols just don't work for me as easier.

I do play some games with colourbind people, and they really struggle with some games because they rely on coloured symbols that they just can't tell apart.

EDIT

While I remember, whilat I rarely use drain soul, and I don't like its ability to deny opponent VPS that way, removing the drain souls action won't stop that. The game is full of people planning ways to kill their own model already. There are very few masters that couldn't reliably kill the target in 1 or 2 AP already if you really wanted that model to die.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Adran

[Alviaran]

by your logic, the only thing i've seen as a legitimate argument for symbols is "i like them"

we do not have a bunch of symbols. we have less than 10. you want to expand it to 30 or more. that's a much better reason to discount the idea.

edit: here's the problem. you are dismissing legitimate concerns by saying they don't bother you, and so are irrelevant. that is the exact reason I will never buy anything by soda pop miniatures. that's why I quit games and burn bridges. that is why people refuse to go back to restaurants. it's why people can't talk politics in polite company. it's bad argument, bad customer service, and only serves to drive people apart.

edit 2: it is a problem picking up new models. I can't count the times we have had to look up a new common ability because either neither person had used it, or hadn't used it in a long time. the fact it isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a real and valid problem for others.

Reread my long post about a redesign. Putting them with relevant stats is a big thing. Not having to flip a card over to see if a weapon is magical, etc. is useful. What legitimate concerns have I dismissed as such?

And if you want to make the personal attack by saying it isn't a problem for me that it isn't a problem for others, I can get mean too. People are lazy about learning new symbols. That is there big problem. Am I saying that? No. It's true for some, but it isn't a valid argument to deconstruct the detractors because it isn't true widely.

And how does symbols change having to look up an ability you are not familiar with from how it is now? If you follow what I'm saying, your reference card has a pg number on it. You look over, see the icon on the card, and go, "Oh. That's Immune to Influence. I know what that does" (because you don't recall the symbol, which becomes less of a problem over time) or "Immune to Influence. Pg 42. *flips open book*" which is really the same thing as seeing Immune to Influence, opening a usable index and having it tell you to go to pg 42 anyway. How do symbols make any of that more inconvenient except in the explicit short term of looking at the reference card until you remember it?

Adran, I think you are mistaken. Some interactions are not that simple. And yes, I am a proponent of telling people RTLL since it answers a lot of rules questions in any game. And again, how about Southern Charm? You need to know the distinction between Attack and attack. Straight up, the rules need to be rewritten. This is one point I cannot entertain any other argument for. They need to be cleaned up. Long time players who play this as a main game are more likely to be familiar with such distinctions. But how many people don't look at forums and then hit a minor tournament or playgroup and have someone go after Cassandra without suffering from Southern Charm?

Many of you argue about symbols being a barrier to entry but I argue that the rules themselves are the worst barrier of entry.

Also, Adran, Schemes need to be retooled no matter what. I had a game at a tournament that was 20ss. I was running Kirai. My most expensive model was an Insidious Madness. He took Kill Protege. On a crucial turn, I sacrificed the Madness to win Initiative. He lost his Kill Protege. That needs to be fixed in general. Drain Soul is just the worst culprit because it is available to everyone as a Sacrifice effect to get around some of these. Kill Protege should read "If the model was killed or sacrificed during the encounter, score 1 VP". Done. And others, like Grudge, can probably use a change that says "If this scheme is announced, score it if the noted model is killed or sacrificed by an enemy model". He can go kill his entire crew if he is worried you took Grudge, but if you called it out, he cannot Drain Soul or just whack it to remove your ability to score. That doesn't create interaction between players, which is what the Schemes are supposed to do. Guard that model, don't just kill it. If you run it off to the corner, I can still theoretically hunt it down. Running away is still something I can play against. I might eliminate the rest of your crew and back a model into a corner. Your playstyle changes the way I might need to approach it, which creates counterplay, rather than you just denying it to me.

And even if you didn't tweak them, I don't think Drain Soul serves a purpose but in the most cornercase bits anyway. You taking multiple attacks and/or models to remove my Kill Protege or whatever takes far more resources from you than a simple action that actually gives you resources for doing it. You aren't giving up nearly as much as you should be to deny me. I've had a number of games where I've taken my Oiran and gone, "Well, WP bonuses are useless here" so the penalty for Drain Souling isn't even that big of a penalty based on the game (and your own crew).

Coloured symbols are bad because of colourblind folks. I am never calling for that. All of WMs symbols are black and white. I don't know if they chose that for aesthetic purposes (being a neutral colour combination not tied to their faction colours) or for colourblind reasons, but it is the right choice. All use of colour in games should negate the necessity to see it whenever possible. Position should be enough to tell you while colour is just a handy little bonus. For instance, in Malifaux, the cards carry the faction symbols on them to denote their faction. For those of us not colourblind, we can just look at the card's colour and get that information. Great. Easy. It is a shortcut. But for those that cannot, they can still get the same information with just a moment's inconvenience.

About depth and complexity, the goal should be the maximum depth with the least complexity. Yes, Malifaux is one of the more complex games on the market. But that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Actually, here is a video that explains it much better than I can. They are referring to it explicitly with regards to video game design, but with only slight tweaks (such as regarding number of calculations expected per second), it applies to pretty much all game design ever. Maximum number of choices and differing experiences while making the rules as easy to grasp (and the UI, or cards, capable of giving as much information as possible while being easy to read, something I feel the current cards are not) as possible. He brings up Dwarf Fortress as being a game that is notoriously artificially complex and difficult to get into so that despite its MASSIVE depth, few people ever get to experience that.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/depth-vs.-complexity

Edited April 9, 2013 by Alviaran

[i_was_like_you]

I find most of the rules discussions on the forums can be answered by reading the exact text of an ability.

It might be as simple as it only affecting a Target, or enemy model, but even when the text is there people still don't read them.

Abilities which don't have any text will still keep you having to go to the exact rules.

Exactly!

Can I see your card should be all that really needs be said to find out what an ability does on its own.

Now, for more complex interactions, reading what your ability does vs what my ability does should solve it. If not, flip for it, jot it down for later, and look at the FAQs and Forums for a better ruling (that you should keep on hand, with page numbers or forum link for next time).

The universal, game-wide symbols we have now are, to be honest, quite enough. To recap:

4 Suits :rams, :crows, :tomes, :masks

5 Faction Symbols :rams, :crows, :tomes, :masks, Outcasts, 10T [They haven't even made it into the Smilies list of symbols]

Aura

Pulse

Ranged

Melee

Chi [not yet]

Positive Flip

Negative Flip

Blast

Methinks someone doth protest too much...

There's also (+1) Fast :fast, but it hasn't been used on a card and since there isn't a symbol for (-1) Slow, there's really no need for either one. [And no, we do not need symbols for all three (+1) Experts or (+2) Masters.]

Faction symbols don't really even count into the number we have because, aside from hiring and possibly distinguishing one faction from another for someone who is colorblind between these shades, they don't have any bearing on play. And since they're the same as the suits that they specialize in, they have that wonderful overlap.

[Omenbringer]

I can see something like Lure and all similar abilities being Lure but then in the Belles POV they still have another rule which gives them the +4 to thier case as they do now.

Does that make sense?

So essentially leave it exactly as is? The Lure spell is exactly the same regardless of the model that has it, what changes is the ability that influences their success. That additional ability is what allows the "fine tuning" of the models.

What would Rotten Belles be without Seductive? They would lose their signature ability and would more than likely be called "situational" or "useless". What if they were given Dark Beauty instead? Common abilities are great however Malifaux is a "Character driven Skirmish game" that would really suffer if the individual "tuning abilities" were diminished to a common pool.

For the anti-symbol people, I have a question (and something to point out)...

Also, the only thing I have seen as a legitimate argument against symbols is the ability to find it because they cannot be alphabetized. The general feeling from anti-symbol I am still getting largely boils down to "I don't like them" rather than a practical reason. As others noted, you already have a BUNCH of symbols in the game so just not liking symbols and preferring text is not a good enough reason to discount the idea.

Lately a lot of people have been arguing against Wyrd's newest batch of cards which have replaced the full ability texts to only the named ability (usually for the "common abilities" though there area few uncommons that have migrated as well). This is identical to changing common abilities to Icons.

Granted there are already some symbols (hardly a bunch) in the game that do ease things (it is usually pretty clear what type of attack or AOE something is) however, adding more (and it would take a lot more to cover only the "common abilities") wouldn't neccessarily ease things, as they would be tied to things that are much more esoteric in nature.

About the only thing that could probably be tied to icons would be the models Characteristics though again this wouldn't really simplify things any more than the words that are used now. I can see the argument about including the Characteristics with the "common abilities" index but I actually like that it is seperate since it provides a very clear distinction (and finding what each relevant one means is no more difficult than looking them up in the index under "Characteristics").

Granted each side has strong opinions about the subject which are unlikely to change (and thankfully this has been very civil, which I thank everyone for) and I am sure Wyrd staffers are stalking in the back ground and taking notes.

[Alviaran]

So, Omenbringer, what are your opinions then on a few specific things I suggested:

-A move to symbols so they can be placed with relevant stats (I view this as the best reason to do it in Malifaux and I would LOVE it)

-Characteristics and characteristics-that-grant-abilities being divorced from each other, particularly if the latter are given symbols? Again, my best example here is Spirit. Having relevant things that effectively affect stats be in the characteristics bar is annoying. First time learning that Nix was a Spirit after I looked over the rest of the card was annoying. For example, you create Spirit (the ability) and Wraith (the characteristic). Wraith goes on the line with Woe, Nightmare, etc. Basically, all of the stuff that helps affect crew hiring for the most part OR is specifically mentioned by another rule (ie nothing generic. So looking up here for Woe is ok because Woe doesn't matter until a rule like Martyr explicitly cares about a Woe. Thus, you know where to look when the time comes, if that makes sense) while Spirit, the ability to move through stuff and take reduced damage, becomes an talent, preferably with an icon to make it easier to recognize. (It also means that it can be interacted with in other ways such as Hexing the Spirit off of something which I think is another interesting idea. Opens more play experiences in cornercase situations)

If any in-game, ability like characteristics became symbols, personally, I'd prefer the other identifying characteristics to remain basically where they are. Aside from those specific cases, I feel characteristics are in a good spot (well, not on the card. Again, my little card redesign would move it, but their presentation remains the same). They are not often something that needs to be easily referenced. One way that this is already done is Black Blood and Nephilim. Is there a Nephilim that DOESN'T have Black Blood? I can't think of one. At least so far, it means Nephilim = Black Blood (Lulu's fluff entry even calls non-Nephilim "those not of the black blood"). But the characteristic Nephilim means nothing in game except when referenced specifically by other models. Black Blood always matters though and is called out specifically as an ability instead. I feel that is a better way to do it.

And for further explaining my ideas for symbols, Black Blood, despite appearing on a number of models including one outside of Neverborn, isn't a "common" ability in my mind. No symbol. You have to pick and choose these. Spirit though is spread across every faction I think (except maybe Guild. Don't know them terribly well. Might be no Spirit in Guild) but I know everyone else has at least one Spirit, if not more. That kind of cross faction pollination of an ability is where I think a symbol is deserved.

[Omenbringer]

What I am having trouble understanding is what symbols need to be placed near there relevant Stats (aside from the ones that already exist). The current method (words vice icons) is just as effective if not more so.

I like the characteristics how they are. yes Spirit and Object effect the damage potential however they are much more than that having other things tied to them. Replacing it with another descriptor and further muddying the abilities list isn't really a great solution. It opens up the need for further model revisions, things like Hex or Mimic (to name a few) would have to be re-evaluated along with hiring pools.

Though I agree that some things could benefit from some further clarifications/ descriptions, I honestly believe the system (from Core Rules to model specific Rules) is actually really good (especially for the "Character Driven Skirmish Game" it is marketed as). Most misunderstandings of things stemming more from a desire to access a powerful combination than an actual rules descrepancy/ loop hole.

Things that I would like to see improved:

• Abilities/ Talents/ Spells that function like auras or Pulses clearly defined as such versus trying to reason things out.
  
• Defined Rules of Resolution for Abilities/ Talents/ Spells that have multiple parts (periods versus commas).
  
• A method of balancing numerous crews versus small crews. Out Activation is very potent in this game and though it shouldn't completely disappear perhaps a way to delay an activation without passing on it.
  
• Re-tooling of some of the Strategies and Schemes (specifically a normalizing of the Master/ Faction specific ones some of which are just plain bad while others are pretty much guarantied points).
  
• Addition of Model specific FAQ's to head off confusion at print (like Privateer Press does now).
  
• Return of the terrain placement "rules" from the first book rather than a vague recommendation to place things so all parties agree (I rather enjoyed the tactical excercise of "Shaping the Battlefield" piece by piece but I know others probably dont).
  
• Drain Souls recieving some revision to prevent easy VP denial Abuse.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Omenbringer

[Alviaran]

I feel it isn't very effective as it is because exactly what Dracomax was saying about models you are less familiar with and making icons more confusing is exactly what I think happens with the text. I see people miss a lot unless they are CONSTANTLY checking their abilities.

The delaying activation thing, I can point to a nice mechanic on one race in Twilight Imperium. In TI, you go in order of the special cards for the round until all players have Passed. Once a player Passes, he is done for the round and will only be defensive. One race has an ability to "check". It isn't a Pass (it doesn't end their turn) but it comes with the catch they cannot do it twice in a row when it comes back to them again. But they a race built on espionage so delaying their moves is important.

I could see a core mechanic of if a player starts with fewer models than his opponent, he gets one Pass Activation for the turn. A "fake activation" to stretch things out a little. My friends found the activation thing annoying enough when I played Kirai consistently and had five Seishin among other things to go before the workhorses started getting things done after they had activated. Hamelin's rat horde does it too.

I agree it is annoying and in some matchups becomes extremely lopsided.

As a personal wish, I wish that since the Masters are far more well "understood" now, that Master specific schemes get rebalanced to be built far more around what that Master tends to do, with some restrictions. It often feels like they work at cross purposes or are just plainly too hard.

[Adran]

And how does symbols change having to look up an ability you are not familiar with from how it is now? If you follow what I'm saying, your reference card has a pg number on it. You look over, see the icon on the card, and go, "Oh. That's Immune to Influence. I know what that does" (because you don't recall the symbol, which becomes less of a problem over time) or "Immune to Influence. Pg 42. *flips open book*" which is really the same thing as seeing Immune to Influence, opening a usable index and having it tell you to go to pg 42 anyway. How do symbols make any of that more inconvenient except in the explicit short term of looking at the reference card until you remember it?

Adran, I think you are mistaken. Some interactions are not that simple. And yes, I am a proponent of telling people RTLL since it answers a lot of rules questions in any game. And again, how about Southern Charm? You need to know the distinction between Attack and attack. Straight up, the rules need to be rewritten. This is one point I cannot entertain any other argument for. They need to be cleaned up. Long time players who play this as a main game are more likely to be familiar with such distinctions. But how many people don't look at forums and then hit a minor tournament or playgroup and have someone go after Cassandra without suffering from Southern Charm?

Many of you argue about symbols being a barrier to entry but I argue that the rules themselves are the worst barrier of entry.

Also, Adran, Schemes need to be retooled no matter what. I had a game at a tournament that was 20ss. I was running Kirai. My most expensive model was an Insidious Madness. He took Kill Protege. On a crucial turn, I sacrificed the Madness to win Initiative. He lost his Kill Protege. That needs to be fixed in general. Drain Soul is just the worst culprit because it is available to everyone as a Sacrifice effect to get around some of these. Kill Protege should read "If the model was killed or sacrificed during the encounter, score 1 VP". Done. And others, like Grudge, can probably use a change that says "If this scheme is announced, score it if the noted model is killed or sacrificed by an enemy model". He can go kill his entire crew if he is worried you took Grudge, but if you called it out, he cannot Drain Soul or just whack it to remove your ability to score. That doesn't create interaction between players, which is what the Schemes are supposed to do. Guard that model, don't just kill it. If you run it off to the corner, I can still theoretically hunt it down. Running away is still something I can play against. I might eliminate the rest of your crew and back a model into a corner. Your playstyle changes the way I might need to approach it, which creates counterplay, rather than you just denying it to me.

And even if you didn't tweak them, I don't think Drain Soul serves a purpose but in the most cornercase bits anyway. You taking multiple attacks and/or models to remove my Kill Protege or whatever takes far more resources from you than a simple action that actually gives you resources for doing it. You aren't giving up nearly as much as you should be to deny me. I've had a number of games where I've taken my Oiran and gone, "Well, WP bonuses are useless here" so the penalty for Drain Souling isn't even that big of a penalty based on the game (and your own crew).

I agree that the rules as currently written can confuse people. A defense duel and an Df duel not being the same thing as well as Attack and attack being different it hard to realise unless someone tells you. Its somethign that is really easily to do when writing rules to use common word as their standard use and then also define them as as Special rule term, which explains the Attack v attack issue. The Df vs Defense issue is in part people misunderstandign the term on the card, and partially the rules using 2 very similar things and needing them to be different.

I don't see symbols themselves having an effect of the rules re-write. The Purpose of Symbols would be to make the card clearer if the card was redesigned. They wouldn't help the rules in anyway, that is entirely seperate.

I personally don't think that the clarity of the card would be helped. Well for me anyway. My regular haunts on this site are the rules and the new players forums, and people keep asking questions about the coloured letters and greyed out suits on triggers.

Would making a symbol next to willpower help people remember that a model is stubborn or immune to influence? I don't think it would. People already don't remember that the model has a trigger associated with the stat even though that information is there. Flood the card with this information and I think it becomes less noticable. I might be wrong here, but that is my experience with the malifaux cards as they are at the moment.

I would like some of the schemes re-written to reduce killing off own crew. Possibly you getting 1 VP if you announced it and they killed the model in the first 4 turns and the full 2vp for killing it on turns 5 and onwards. But what I was tryign to say is that is a seperate issue to Drain Souls.

In your example I think your opponent was very silly to pick a model that has an intrinsic sacrifice effect that you are likely to use anyway as the target for a scheme when they have to kill it. But again that is a scheme matter not a Drain souls matter.

Its a flavourful ability. Maybe as the game has grown, and a lot of the common tactics now involve killing your own side for profit anyway you don't need the ability in to show the flavour of being prepared to do anything to win. The ability to get soulstones from your own crew when you need them was nice. It was very niche in use but fit the world well. I certainly agree that it has mainly been used not for its intended purpose, and so things should be changed, but more on the VP side than its intended side

[Dracomax]

Would making a symbol next to willpower help people remember that a model is stubborn or immune to influence? I don't think it would. People already don't remember that the model has a trigger associated with the stat even though that information is there. Flood the card with this information and I think it becomes less noticable. I might be wrong here, but that is my experience with the malifaux cards as they are at the moment.

it might be okay if it were used like a footnote;there was a symbol by the stat, and the symbol was also by the description.

The problem is that with just the symbol, I'm going to say 1)Okay, I have no idea what that is. I can take 5-10 minutes to look it up, or ignore it and look it up after the game.

2)(if I look it up)Oh, that's stubborn. it gives me something to will power. better look up the exact rule.

if the definition of stubborn is on the card, I save time, confusion, and argument.

As to reworking the schemes to make sacrificing your own model less worthwhile...it would hurt crews who are about sacrificing/killing models for things disproportionately. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done, just that you have to be very careful not to punish a valid play-style in order to hurt a play-style that isn't very valid.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Well, that gets you into a grey area, who is making the determinations as to what is considered "valid".

All you can do is agree to follow what the rules say. The instant you get into discussion over how to use the rules in the "valid" way problems can arise.

[Dracomax]

Well, that gets you into a grey area, who is making the determinations as to what is considered "valid".

All you can do is agree to follow what the rules say. The instant you get into discussion over how to use the rules in the "valid" way problems can arise.

Well, the first stage is what the game developers want. in the past, when playstyles have gone against them, they've issued errata. The second stage is tournament/organised play organisers. They determine valid play for the purposes of their event, above and beyond the rules. This is often done by modification to schemes, such as schemes can't be accomplished on the first round.

The final stage is community/ group fiat. This is often more along the lines of, that's bad form, and if you continue playing like that, people will stop playing with you.

Of course, the issue here is that killing your own models, or destroying terrain, or otherwise using "cheap" tactics is legal, but not accepted as good form, and many people are saying it should not be a valid way of denying VP.

My counter is that if you make that change, you have to be careful it doesn't effect some crews rhat rely on killing their own crews for tactics that msot people consider to be perfectly valid, good form, and may even be necessary to make them work (such as Leveticus, or summoning crews) disproportionatly, in essence flipping the problem from "I can't get this because if I announce it, they just sac the model" to "This is an instant win for me, because if they don't kill this model, they lose anyway."

[Fetid Strumpet]

Which is exactly my point. A game is a social contract and since we all have different opinions, likes, preferences, and even style of play, you will never get people to agree on what is "Valid" and what is not. So the only way we can have any ability to play the game with other people, especially outside our immediate groups, is to agree to follow the rules, and that is pretty much the end of it.

As an aside just to prove my point, I was totally flabbergasted that you mentioned that there are people who think destroying Terrain isn't playing in a "Valid" way. It rarely gets done in my experience, mainly because people forget they can do it, but to actually have people look down on the practice? That's certainly a new one on me I don't understand.

[Boshea]

As an aside just to prove my point, I was totally flabbergasted that you mentioned that there are people who think destroying Terrain isn't playing in a "Valid" way. It rarely gets done in my experience, mainly because people forget they can do it, but to actually have people look down on the practice? That's certainly a new one on me I don't understand.

neko-"Is it difficult terrain to go through the door."

Me-"Well Izamu is pretty big so we'll say yes for now."

neko-"How hard is it to break down the wall."

Me-"Its rock so you'd need red joker."

*Flips Red Joker*

Me-"F*** you neko."

[Dracomax]

Which is exactly my point. A game is a social contract and since we all have different opinions, likes, preferences, and even style of play, you will never get people to agree on what is "Valid" and what is not. So the only way we can have any ability to play the game with other people, especially outside our immediate groups, is to agree to follow the rules, and that is pretty much the end of it.

As an aside just to prove my point, I was totally flabbergasted that you mentioned that there are people who think destroying Terrain isn't playing in a "Valid" way. It rarely gets done in my experience, mainly because people forget they can do it, but to actually have people look down on the practice? That's certainly a new one on me I don't understand.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. but since this is a thread about what people want in a 2.0, and a large number of people are chiming in to to claim that killing a model to avoid having the opponent get kill protoge, I thought it should be mentioned that if that is made invalid by the rules, it hurts certain crews disproportionatly.

and I think that would be bad. m'kay?

[Forar]

Meh, we'll just have to see. I generally try and refrain from "GAME VERSION X.X SPECULATION THREADS!" in every game I play - they're ubiquitous and irrelevant but the icons issue piqued my interest.

Whatever is done - be it book 5, new rule books, whatever I hope it improves Malifaux and doesn't detract from what we already love. We don't need another D&D 4e on our hands here.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to please everyone all the time.

As I noted above, I love 4E D&D, so when you say "we don't need another 4e on our hands", I immediately thought "what, we don't want a well balanced system that isn't broken eight ways from Sunday by level 9?"

Different people like different things. Some people like having Wizards that are scared of the common housecat at level 1 and rending the fabric or space and time a dozen levels later. Personally I prefer my martial classes remaining relevant from first level to last, rather than being rapidly outclassed (I've heard it eloquently put as "Linear fighters, exponential casters").

But tying this back to the topic at hand, as we've seen in this very thread, there are people passionate enough to sign into the forums and discuss for pages the issue of game balance, streamlining and even changes, but we only reflect a tiny vocal minority within the community. Back in the early years of World of Warcraft, one of their Customer Support guys mentioned that as vocal as the forums could be, something like only 1% of the playerbase even logged into them, and even fewer did so regularly, and even fewer yet posted/did so regularly. As easy as it is to feel like vanguards of the community, it's worth recognizing that for every one of us in favour or against something, there are possibly dozens or even hundreds of other players out there with opinions and preferences somewhere between the extremes of the spectrum.

And to loop back around to my D&D point, I think it best to recognize that difference in opinion. Even as a huge fan of 4E, I don't disparage people who enjoy 3E. I do, however, take issue with it being maligned as though it were the worst thing to happen to gaming since ET for the Atari. Let's save that hyperbole for the shenanigans that seem to be involved in 5E. ;-)

Edit: in regards to symbols, I play Monsterpocalypse with friends once per year for an epic birthday marathon that he runs, and I agree that going purely on symbols (especially if you're not playing regularly) can be a bit frustrating as you're constantly looking for things. Especially if they're somewhat similar, as that can both be a benefit (similar things, similar symbols) and a detriment (curses, that's not X, it's Y! >.< )

Edited April 10, 2013 by Forar

[Adran]

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. but since this is a thread about what people want in a 2.0, and a large number of people are chiming in to to claim that killing a model to avoid having the opponent get kill protoge, I thought it should be mentioned that if that is made invalid by the rules, it hurts certain crews disproportionatly.

and I think that would be bad. m'kay?

Can you give me an example of a crew that this would hurt disproportionatly?

[Dracomax]

I already gave you a couple. Anyone that depends on sacrificing or killing their own models to get better models. Leveticus, with his powerful models designed to die and come back. aRamos. Half of the Resser crews. Anyone bringing Bete Noir.

I'm not saying there aren't options that avoid being hurt. But there are options to avoid losing some of that AP too. Basically, What I'm saying is that it is just as bad to have a scheme that is almost an auto win against certain crews as a scheme that is an auto lose. Not saying don't change the schemes, just that we have to be very careful when doing so.

[Gruesome]

neko-"Is it difficult terrain to go through the door."

Me-"Well Izamu is pretty big so we'll say yes for now."

neko-"How hard is it to break down the wall."

Me-"Its rock so you'd need red joker."

*Flips Red Joker*

Me-"F*** you neko."

hahahahaha!

[Ryu]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to please everyone all the time.

As I noted above, I love 4E D&D, so when you say "we don't need another 4e on our hands", I immediately thought "what, we don't want a well balanced system that isn't broken eight ways from Sunday by level 9?"

Different people like different things.

Bringing back the 4e discussion I actually liked 4e too - not as D&D. As MMO on paper. The main problem, in my eyes, with 4e is that it was such a rapid departure from 3/3.5e.

That's what I don't want to see with Malifaux. I don't want Malifaux.Next (whatever that number could be 1.75, 2.0? 9000?) to not be Malifaux 1.5's successor, but rather some other game that is Malifaux in name only.

That's what I was trying to get across. I will now exit this conversation as rampant speculation does drive me a bit crazy.

[The Godlyness]

*everyone that mentioned "the thing that must not be said" will now be haunted by ghost of Gary Gygax"

Nothing to see here or contribute. since this thread does the same i seem to fit right in.

that comes off salty, lets try being more nice next time k?

fine ok.

[Forar]

I already gave you a couple. Anyone that depends on sacrificing or killing their own models to get better models. Leveticus, with his powerful models designed to die and come back. aRamos. Half of the Resser crews. Anyone bringing Bete Noir.

I'm not saying there aren't options that avoid being hurt. But there are options to avoid losing some of that AP too. Basically, What I'm saying is that it is just as bad to have a scheme that is almost an auto win against certain crews as a scheme that is an auto lose. Not saying don't change the schemes, just that we have to be very careful when doing so.

There is a difference, however, between a master or two having effects that can circumvent a scheme or make it problematic, and EVERY master having an ability that flat out nullifies an opponent's chance to get more than 6 points in an average game. Depending on other factors (especially in a tournament or other limited time setting where points may be tallied before the game would conclude naturally), losing that expensive figure might well be worth practically negating your opponent's ability to win.

Even simply removing drain souls but leaving the scheme untouched would be problematic, especially since the ability to cheat up the attack and cheat down the defense could let combat heavy masters possibly 1-shot said figure unless it was particularly hardy.

Now, I am a fan of "outside the box thinking". I love finding solutions to problems that utilize uncommon approaches, but every master having an easy answer to a scheme leads me to think that either the scheme needs revising, the ability needs revising, or both need revising.

Maybe I just don't have the hundreds of games under my belt some people do, but I've never used nor seen used the Drain Souls ability, and can't recall across those dozens of games anytime that I might've turned things around by doing so, other than perhaps if my opponent had taken KP themselves.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

I must say, my favourite part of "Edition Wars" is that no matter how much respect you can show for fans of 3E, there's always some... individual who feels the need to malign 4E.

Folks, don't be 'that guy'. If you don't like 4E, fine, don't play it.

But name calling is beneath you and only shows an unwillingness to show some common courtesy to those with differing opinions.

It's a game edition, not a political or religious affiliation, for pete's sake.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Forar

[CRC]

Kill Protégé at least targets the most expensive model. If the opponent wants to sacrifice it, they have to give up a significant amount of their SS. And if self-sacrifice completes the scheme, it's not like you're normally going to chop up your most expensive model for parts. If you're just throwing it away because it's a sacrificial unit, well that's the point of the scheme.

As for Bete Noire, she doesn't die, so it doesn't trigger on her unless she's removed from the game.

As for A&D, Spider Swarms, Coryphee, etc. They're corner cases and best dealt with by rules that better track how schemes follow along models.

Grudge is more of an issue. If self-sacrifice doesn't count, every opponent has a choice of denying you your VP. If self-sacrifice counts, then every grow-type list is giving up 2 free VP.

[Forar]

While Grudge on a Grow list might be a setback, it's not like it's impossible simply not sacrifice that figure, especially since the 'grow' concept often (usually?) means having several cheap models that you turn into bigger/nastier ones. Being denied the use of a Terror Tot because it's been Grudge'd seems like a small price to pay.

However, I'm sure a middle ground could be found. Maybe make it so Grudge can't be taken against figures that cost less than 3 or 4SS? (I believe Zombie Pups, Desperate Mercs and Tots are all cheap enough for that to cover them, and seem to be common inclusions in said Growing lists)

Edit: however, in regards to 'giving up an expensive model', there are factors to that. They can do it late in the game, perhaps after that figure has already killed/tied up resources above and beyond it's cost. Or it might happen mid game (turn 3 or 4 or so) which is actually the "end game" because of a time limit, meaning it served it's purpose until it was time to deny VP. And while a 7-9 or whatever SS figure is certainly a sizable portion of a given 35ss list, those lists also cap out at 8VP, so further capping your opponent at 6 is HUUUUUGE.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Forar