Malifaux 2.0 rumours?

[i_was_like_you]

We can keep Drain Souls and the ability to kill our own models as is, and just change those strats and schemes to have phrasing that at least gives partial, if not full, vp for the opponent killing their own model. If that's your own protegee you're killing, there should be a bit of a penalty involved.

I'm not part of the tournament scene, but I do have quite a few games under my belt. I think I may have used drain souls once, just to have the stones I needed to take out the enemy's master with my own. That is, unless you count the ronin's better than drain souls seppuku. Then I've done that a handful of times. Sack one ronin to have the two stones to sack the other one for Another One of Vikie.

---------------------------

Regarding edition wars, it's going to happen. You get used to one version, that plays well, even with some hiccups, and then when they change it, no matter how little, you still get folk fiercely loyal to the old version, who won't try the new version.

I've tried 4th. It is just an MMO on paper. That's not a put down. It's just a matter of course. They wanted the transition between their D&D Online and the tabletop to be fairly seamless.

3.x, while still playable with just a few books, got to the point where players wanted to play some obscure variant of a character with feats and spells scattered between a dozen or so books. That's fine, but it's certainly more than I want to cart around with me if the session isn't at my place. But 3.0 definitely improved over 2nd ed.'s THAC0 and limboing under the six saves.

The new D&D Next looks promising, though.

[Alviaran]

Very rarely do I think it would hurt nearly as bad as you say, especially if you take into account my earlier suggestion.

First off, Kill Protege is the highest cost model. The times that any crew does that tend to be pretty cornercase and so in those cases, ok, you gave up VPs because of some weird idea you had.

Second, for the other "kill X with Y" schemes, my previous suggestion was that if I announce Grudge and you kill it, I get 1 VP anyway. If I fulfill the conditions, I get 2 VP. It makes you stop and think if killing that piece is worth it to immediately give me that 1 VP. (Hidden this wouldn't apply. It is to discourage that kind of play. If it is hidden, you might kill it and then I laugh when that wasn't my scheme anyway). And how many of those crews are completely and totally shut down because they don't want to kill that one dog for a corpse counter or whatever because I called a scheme on it? It doesn't stop your entire plan from working, it takes 1-2 models out of it (depending on what schemes I called). And those models are still useful, just not in the "They are never going to do anything but die to my own stuff" way.

Kidnap is how more "kill" schemes should be. Model not on the table. I can already take that against McMourning and he will cry because his little dog factory just gave me 2 VPs for free. So, the ability for the kill scheme to already disproportionately affect some crews is already in the game. That one takes 3 models out of his pool AND HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW I HAVE THE SCHEME! If I take Grudge and hide it, that is one model you might give me a single VP off of unknowingly. If I announce it, with my suggestion, you know you are giving me one. That information is important. It's good to know where you stand. And you can choose to just go without a single corpse and not kill that dog. If your entire plan is built around that one summon and you cannot play the game because your choice is play your gimmick or give me a VP, your list is terrible. You should not have a single gimmick that runs the entire list. In Warmachine we call it a skew list. Skew lists can be really powerful. But if they run into their counter, they fall apart fast. Since Malifaux can be more adaptable in win cons thanks to Schemes after crews are selected, such skew lists are even more unstable.

And as to Kidnap specifically since I want more "kill" schemes to be based around "model not on table", Kidnap gets to be balanced against them because while it gets to remain hidden, it takes three kills instead of one specific kill to get 2 VPs off of. That is the trade off.

[Forar]

Regarding edition wars, it's going to happen. You get used to one version, that plays well, even with some hiccups, and then when they change it, no matter how little, you still get folk fiercely loyal to the old version, who won't try the new version.

And I don't think this is a healthy manner of addressing/discussing things, for most people at least. It's fine to be annoyed or unhappy that the edition you enjoy is no longer being supported, but it's less productive to be outright antagonistic over it. 3E and 3.5 had reasonably long and productive runs, with a sizable book count in place to permit people to play a variety of campaigns for decades to come, if they so chose. Same with 4E, which had its own issues with support, but right now with only a half dozen books I could run games literally forever if I wanted to. That doesn't mean I need to lash out at 5E or make snide remarks about people who are looking forward to it or enjoy it.

]I've tried 4th. It is just an MMO on paper. That's not a put down. It's just a matter of course. They wanted the transition between their D&D Online and the tabletop to be fairly seamless.

... there was a literal World of Warcraft Conversion Book for 3 or 3.5. It's still on Amazon. If anything, the focus on miniatures and tactical combat makes it more of a Skirmish game. Hell, the average Encounter probably has fewer figures than one of Malifaux. Super late edit: and while you might not have intended as such, I've heard the "it's like an MMO on paper!" stated many times by many people in a derisive way, which is weird, because MMO's are often very much an evolution of table top gaming (in one fashion or another, be it setting, mechanics, etc), and I fail to see why learning from some of the lessons MMO development and updating would be a bad thing. Sure there are fly-by-nights and much maligned games out there, but we're talking millions of dollars being spent on game development, player psychology, mechanics, making things accessible, etc. That's a lot of work that could possibly cross over genres without a whole lot of adjustment.

3.x, while still playable with just a few books, got to the point where players wanted to play some obscure variant of a character with feats and spells scattered between a dozen or so books. That's fine, but it's certainly more than I want to cart around with me if the session isn't at my place. But 3.0 definitely improved over 2nd ed.'s THAC0 and limboing under the six saves.

The new D&D Next looks promising, though.

I cut my teeth on AD&D, spent plenty of time in 3E, and a good number of campaigns in 4E. I enjoyed different parts of them, but for me and my group, we appreciated the improved class balance in 3E (coming off a good half a decade of Rifts adventures. If you want to see a poorly balanced system where that's considered a Feature, let me show you Rifts and Palladium systems in general...), and 4E merely enhanced that, where all of the classes filled roles (literal and figurative) and nobody started off vastly under powered (1st level Mage with a crossbow says Hi) or became absurdly overpowered (5th-9th'ish level Mage says Hi).

That's not for some people, and I'm cool with that, but as noted above, I feel the conversations become vastly less productive when people (and I'm sure there are 4E players out there guilty of it as well) skip over reasonable commentary for the cheap shot generalizations ('may Gygax haunt those who play the edition that shall not be named', etc, in jest as it may be, such statements aren't far off from actual 'grognardism'* I've seen in regards to the editions over the years, yes, including 3E).

*: Oh noes, I have become that which I hate, how lamentable!

I've read playtest material for Next, and read through chat logs and Play By Posts for 5E, and I have utterly zero interest in playing that system myself. But again, I can recognize something as 'not for me' while not belittling or demeaning or mocking it derisively. There's a difference between giving critique and simply being blindly critical. And to be fair, I'm sure some people here have played 4E and found it lacking. I could go on at length about the things I find wrong with 3E, but you don't see me giving it a (err) textual lambasting every time someone brings it up.

Anyway, tying this back to the original topic at hand of adjustments to malifaux (update, revision, minor changes, whatever), with a fanbase as diverse and with as varied interests as Malifaux does, almost no change(s) would satisfy every last single customer. It doesn't have to be about 'simplifying' or 'dumbing down' things to streamline, yes possibly for broader appeal or simply because after a few years of open release, some things were found to be less enjoyable than originally anticipated, or more complicated/time consuming than desired, etc.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Forar

[i_was_like_you]

What gets me about the whole D&D thing is that they should have the best freaking MMO ever conceived. Instead, Everquest had its decade in the limelight, along side Ultima Online, then along came WoW, and it snagged up everyone. D&D Online is an afterthought. Like, oh, maybe there is some money in this afterall, let's finally give it a shot.

3rd definitely fixed a lot of issues. In AD&D just by being a rogue (thief), you leveled amazingly fast. Fighter was the default speed, and wizards took forever. Get to 3rd and everyone gains levels at the same time (unless they had a racial level adjustment). 4th, though, says all characters gain the exact same level of benefits at the exact same levels. The wizard should not be just as good at stabbing someone as the fighter.

But, anyways, back to Malifaux. Only a few minor things really need be changed to polish the system we have. And most of those things have popped up in this thread.

[Omenbringer]

The easiest (and probably best solution) to fixing Drain Souls is to tie it to a stronger negative (especially in regards to VP's). Also it should be limited to once per game.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Omenbringer

[CRC]

The wizard should not be just as good at stabbing someone as the fighter.

The Wizard isn't even close. Unless it's a crazy wizard who's got the same strength score as a fighter and spent feats getting useful-stabbing-weapon proficiency, and more feats taking multiclass powers to get useful non-basic-attach stabs.

Even then, they're still a poor copy, and a poor wizard to boot.

[Claymore65]

This discussion got real interesting since I last checked. I'll give a couple of my own opinions:

1. Icons: I don't hate them, but I don't love them. I've been playing a lot of Warmachine lately as that's what's most popular at my LGS. I'm having a good time, and it has gotten me mostly used to icons. I don't know if I like them as much as real words, however. For me, it heavily depends on the icon used for the ability. The icon needs to easily represent the ability. If I look at the icon and I can't connect the name of the ability to icon then the icon isn't representative enough. Warmachine, in my opinion, has both great icons and terrible ones. For example, the incorpreal icon looks like a little ghost. It's easy to tell that it implies moving through objects/units and non-magical damage can't hurt them (it's a ghost). The symbol for pathfinder (letting you move through rough terrain) is a little boot, it's clear that at least it affects movement. These are great icons. The symbol for tough, however, is a little nail with two nails crossing eachother. It took me a while to realise my Wardog had tough because the symbol wasn't instantly recognizable. If you want to put symbols in for basic abilities, I'm okay with it, but make sure they are easy to learn. Maybe armor is a little shield or slow to die has a hourglass inside of a heart or something. Make sure they are easy to understand, and only make icons for very common abilities (like hard-to-wound, etc.). I'd be a little more happy without them, but they definitly wouldn't kill the game for me.

2. Sacrifcing/Killing Own Models: I think killing your own models/sacrificing/drain souls should NOT prevent strategies or schemes. I don't think a massive overhaul of the strategy/scheme system is neccesary, in fact the individualized goals/strategies is one of the game's greatest strengths. The wide variety of them and customizable nature of them makes the strategies/schemes fantastic. I don't like that sacrificing prevents victory even though the other player was doing great. I shouldn't possibly lose victory points in Slaughter because my opponent brought Stitched Togethers and they sacrifice themselves instead of dying normally. I mostly play casual games, so it's less of a big deal, but the whole "I'll kill my protegee so you can't" is not only irritating but also can be downright broken. By announcing your scheme, it is supposed to be giving an advantage to the opposing player in return for VP. It shouldn't give the opponent a chance to completly nullify it, it should allow your opponent to prepare for their tactics. I don't think an overhaul is neccesary, and I'm a-ok with the various tactics involving killing your own models, but I don't think they should deny your opponent VP. Killing your own Canine remains to get a hollow waif is fine, but it should't prevent your opponent from winning even though he killed more SS worth of your troops. This wouldn't require a "mkII" only a simple errata about a page long explaining it.

3. This is more of a question for everyone. Balancing certain models has come up multiple times in this interesting thread. With some of the biggest offenders fixed (Hamelin and the Dreamer) what other models do you think need cuddles/Buffs/Changes? Do Lelu/Lilitu seem worth more than 7 SS? Should guild autopsies be able to drop corpse counters? Does Leveticus deal too much damage (I say that as a Levi/Viks player myself)? I don't play competively, and it would be interesting to see who people think are overpowered. Neverborn in general seem to grind my gears, with awesome, quick, and deadly models for less points than I would have to pay for them in Outcasts. Still, when I one turn Lord Chompy Bits with Levi it's certainly worth a laugh.

4. D&D Edition Wars: This probably isn't the place to talk about that...but while we are I do love DMing 4th edition. It is much easier since the monster system is divorced from the player class building, so building monsters becomes very easy math and coming up with cool powers for them. The fact that I didn't have to build two 3rd level characters Orc opponents to make it a fun encounter is just great for me. All I had to do was open the monster manual and pick out 1 "Orc Shaman" 2 "Orc brutes" and 4 "Orc Grunts" and away I went. The monster system is fantasic in 4th. I think all editions have their own advantages (1st is simple, 2nd has some great lore, 3.5 has awesome character cusomization, 4th is more balanced etc.) and I like both 3.5 and 4th (I mostly like 4th), but all still have advantages and disadvantages.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Claymore65

[Omenbringer]

3. This is more of a question for everyone. Balancing certain models has come up multiple times in this interesting thread. With some of the biggest offenders fixed (Hamelin and the Dreamer) what other models do you think need cuddles/Buffs/Changes? Do Lelu/Lilitu seem worth more than 7 SS? Should guild autopsies be able to drop corpse counters? Does Leveticus deal too much damage (I say that as a Levi/Viks player myself)? I don't play competively, and it would be interesting to see who people think are overpowered. Neverborn in general seem to grind my gears, with awesome, quick, and deadly models for less points than I would have to pay for them in Outcasts. Still, when I one turn Lord Chompy Bits with Levi it's certainly worth a laugh.

Not neccesarily talking about reducing the power level of many models more like bringing some older models up a bit.

Examples would include Hans who really should have Custom Ammunition as the ability the Gunsmith has rather than the spell he does now. The Copy Cat Killer losing the :masks on Mistaken Identity.

The only model which would probably need a lot of help is the Malifaux Child though I have some ideas on how to fix him.

I would really like to see the malifaux Rat either denied to the gremlins or at least made viable for something other than "free" healing and skeeter generation (probably an unfavorable opinion).

[i_was_like_you]

In regards to schemes, maybe lifting the "having to anounce every part of the scheme" rule could help. At only the difference between 1 and 2 vp, letting you know that I've taken Kill Protegee, as opposed to I've taken it on Cassie, I have a Grudge, not who the Grudge is against, you've been Framed for Murder, not who you've Murdered, etc. You write it down and leave some mystery to the game. In a tourney, maybe you submit it to the TO. I think this was discussed on another thread somewhere.

When it comes to killing your own master to prevent a Message being Delivered, I think that since the message was "Seamus (or other master) sleeps with the fishes", the Message should count as at least half credit, if not full credit. It's one thing if the opponent gets all killy and makes the mistake of killing the target of a strat or scheme. It's quite another to be able to deny 2 to 4 vp fo killing it yourself. Or maybe we transfer the message to the next in command instead. Oh, Seamus is dead. Fine, can Madam Sybelle sign for it instead?

It certainly seems like cheating, not good sportsmanship, to kill your own models specifically to deny vp. Yes, there are plenty of viable lists that require sacking models to achieve their ends, but those ends are bigger, hopefully better models (or a swarm of smaller models) with which to achieve strats and schemes with. Most of them cause their strat or scheme target to be transferred, as is.

[Adran]

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.

I don't see any of those hurt really by any of the suggested changes. I don't think anyone in the thread said you shouldn't be able to sacrifice models that were targetted by those schemes, and saying you couildn't kill them makes them actually quite powerful.

Kill protogee only targets the most expensive model, so its typically unlikely to be a model that you are going to sacrifice for grow purposes.

Grudge has its own limitations. Even if you couldn't sacrifice it, you have sort of added a little frame for murder onto the model. Your opponent has to kill it with a melee strike from a minion. On no that 2 point canine remains I can't kill. Well I can run it away, and still deny the points that way, and if they do kill it, they have saved me the AP I would have spent on killing it.

This is where this sort of discussion normally struggles (at least in my eyes) as we have gone from complainign about Drain Souls as a way of stopping some VPs (whilst it does, not much more than a sword to the head of the model would, and pretty much any master could kill them through damage) to the problem is then the scheme not drain souls, to changing the scheme changes a niche way of playing the game. (you might not view Grow lists as niche, I look at them and don't think that was the way it was envisioned. I think the expectation was you would use corpse scrap and blood that naturally occured throuigh the game rather than force a load by hiring models just to kill. Its not something I enjoy playing or facing, btu I don't view it as broken. I think it normally costs too much in Tempo, and I like things like Kidnap which make the grow list player think about what they actually do. I just wish kidnap was announced in its current form)

If someone is playing a grow list, its typically pretty obvious from their list. Don't pick Grudge on a canine remains, you won't kill it, your opponent will. Thats not a fault of the current rules in my mind, thats just a bad player choice.

[Dracomax]

...

If someone is playing a grow list, its typically pretty obvious from their list. Don't pick Grudge on a canine remains, you won't kill it, your opponent will. That's not a fault of the current rules in my mind, thats just a bad player choice.

Okay, so would this work as a compromise? Change Kill protege so that if the model is not on the table at the end of the game, the person who chose Kill Protege gets full VP(two if announced, one in not), and leave grudge as is?

[Adran]

I don't know. I have personally never faced an opponent who deliberatly killed their own model to deny me points. That change sounds like it would stop the complaints on Kill protogee, and I can't think of any abuses for it (Not sayign there aren't but I can't think of any straight away).

I take them happily as they are currently written, but I know others have complained of possible abuse.

[pixelante]

Perhaps you should just change your target for Grudge to something core to your opponents strategy so they can't run it away without giving you a solid advantage.

[Dracomax]

Perhaps you should just change your target for Grudge to something core to your opponents strategy so they can't run it away without giving you a solid advantage.

you mean there are people who don't already do that?

[Forar]

Not neccesarily talking about reducing the power level of many models more like bringing some older models up a bit.

Examples would include Hans who really should have Custom Ammunition as the ability the Gunsmith has rather than the spell he does now. The Copy Cat Killer losing the :masks on Mistaken Identity.

The only model which would probably need a lot of help is the Malifaux Child though I have some ideas on how to fix him.

I would really like to see the malifaux Rat either denied to the gremlins or at least made viable for something other than "free" healing and skeeter generation (probably an unfavorable opinion).

Agreed. These are some figures that could use a little tweak or a sizable overhaul. I don't think anyone expects such adjustments to be swift (if they ever happen, as we know Wyrd takes its time with these things in an effort to not have to keep re-updating the figures, even if that's the end result over years and thousands (tens of thousand?) of games), but there are certainly a few figures that might need a little tweak down from the higher end (as you noted), and others that could use a bum up, like the Ice Golem, Malifaux Child (to note ones I commonly see comments about) and the ones I personally would love to see fixes for, the Purifying Flame and Latigo Pistoleros, but that's spoken as a primarily Guild player.

When it comes to killing your own master to prevent a Message being Delivered, I think that since the message was "Seamus (or other master) sleeps with the fishes", the Message should count as at least half credit, if not full credit. It's one thing if the opponent gets all killy and makes the mistake of killing the target of a strat or scheme. It's quite another to be able to deny 2 to 4 vp fo killing it yourself. Or maybe we transfer the message to the next in command instead. Oh, Seamus is dead. Fine, can Madam Sybelle sign for it instead.

This is an awesome idea.

Also, hillarious.

[CRC]

Given that (generally speaking), it's presumed that "killed" masters are just incapacitated in some way, maybe they should drop a marker when they die, and the message can be delivered (for only 2 VP) to said marker?

(also include something about marker going away if the master respawns (Levi, Vik, Huggy, ...))

[HalcyonSeraph]

The wizard should not be just as good at stabbing someone as the fighter.

He isn't, and I don't think you have played 4th at all if you think he is.

What the Wizard should be is as useful to the party, at every level, as the fighter or the rogue. He should not be a liability at 1st and overshadowing everyone at 9th. That's not the same thing at all as "everyone is exactly the same".

[Forar]

Different Base Attack Bonuses and iterative attacks were both terrible. Primary stats alone were generally enough to be a very sizable difference in oppositely focused classes without doubling down, or giving the martial classes bonus attack(s) at vastly reduced likelihood of striking, especially given that by the time they were getting that bonus attack the casters were quite possibly literally rending the nature of time and space.

Or at least hurling death from a hundred feet away or casting spells to allow them to out-fighter the fighter (Cleric, I'm looking at you).

Edit: and in hindsight... why couldn't I play a strength focused Wizard? It would likely be highly non-optimal in both 3 and 4, but if I wanted to do so because I had a character concept of a burly meathead who was forced to channel his minimal latent talent by his parents/cult/monastery/whomever, why is it a bad thing that in 4E he doesn't take an extra "you chose the wrong class" penalty? His restricted choices for feats, skills and powers alone are going to be massive setbacks already. Expecting to bump 'em down a few points on attack rolls is just adding salt to the wound. :-P

It's funny how this tangent in many ways ties directly back to the issues at hand in game design. How you differentiate things while trying to keep them balanced. The figures are admittedly NOT balanced between them, and it seems fairly clear (especially with a low variable range of generally 1 to 9'ish, with some spiking into the low teens) that if there's math behind the figures it's a bit fuzzy. Obviously, a 12 SS figure is not necessarily 6 times better than a 2 SS figure, for example. Or balancing melee versus range fighting, which is further influenced massively by the table being played upon, etc.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Forar

[i_was_like_you]

Apparently folks got so hung up on their love of 4e, that they failed to read my segue back into a Malifaux conversation on this thread:

But, anyways, back to Malifaux. Only a few minor things really need be changed to polish the system we have. And most of those things have popped up in this thread.

So, here's room to vent about whichever edition of D&D tickles our respective fancies:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?41095-The-D-amp-D-Edition-Thread-(That-I-Should-Have-Made-Sooner)&p=529343#post529343

And might I suggest that the Warmachine / Hordes discussions have their own thread, as well?

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

Given that (generally speaking), it's presumed that "killed" masters are just incapacitated in some way, maybe they should drop a marker when they die, and the message can be delivered (for only 2 VP) to said marker?

(also include something about marker going away if the master respawns (Levi, Vik, Huggy, ...))

It could use some fine-tuning, but I like the idea of the idea. I'd extend the killed masters / henchmen courtesy over to all named models, though, really. How many times can an Ortega take a bullet and still show up in the next game?

Not that I want to implement the campaign rules over to the basic / tournament game, but something along the lines of the model isn't really eliminated after all does make some sense for allowing completion of strats and schemes post-mortem. As killing off a master doesn't just end the game right then and there, like it might in other games (Puppet Wars, Warmahordes, etc.), my idea of the next in charge becomes the new target of things like Deliver a Message might not be that far-fetched.

[Forar]

While it is clearly a tangent, I think the comparisons are similar enough to warrant dissection and discussion. The thread topic is a (now apparently abandoned) fear of a massive Malifaux update. How fans have reacted in the past to massive system/edition updates to other games seems interesting to me, and we witnessed that very thing right here on the forums.

D&D is just a long running example. I know players from the 70's who recall being mocked over an interest in Basic, or AD&D, and it's not exactly hard to find people similarly losing their figurative cheerios over 3E, 3.5, Pathfinder (3.75'ish), 4 and Next.

Similar issues with miniatures games (Warmahordes, various flavours of Warhammer, etc), other RPGs (I know of Shadowrun fans who cling to specific editions as their preferred source of Johnsons and running and street sweepererering), etc.

Basically, the specifics of "4E vs 3E" aren't topical, but the reactions of fanbases to updates, changes or revisions is. Hell, the original post is based off of no information, just a fan who heard rumours he/she disliked and felt the need to check in with the rest of the fanbase about.

Now, I'm not trying to kick a hornets nest over this, but it is worth pondering why it's a hornets nest in the first place. Do fans of X really need to get bent out of shape by even a theoretical discussion of an X+1? I don't think so, yet the same debates, arguments and flame wars occur all the time, for actual products and those imagined.

I mean, I'd put down everything I own on a bet that there will one day be a 6th Edition of D&D, and that there will be flamewars over it. Of course, no one in Vegas would take that bet, because they also know that like all other constants, the sun will rise, water will remain wet, etc. The particulars change, but the reaction remains the same, and while it can be indicative of passion that those players/hobbyists/etc have for their chosen passtime, the response to change, uncertainty or what have you can range from lively to, ahhh... unhealthily intense.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Forar

[i_was_like_you]

This is an awesome idea.

Also, hillarious.

Thank you.

I also agree with you on the revamping older models (and a few other duds along the way). I think they could have waited on the 1.5 version of the first book to make it a true 1.5. Not just including the new Rules Manual revisions to the rules, but also retooling the models from the book, in some cases, from the ground up. I haven't compared book 1 next to book 1.5 yet, but so far, aside from clearing up some models' wording, to at least reflect their v2 stat cards, and removing Drifter from the Ronin, they all stayed as is.

As book 1's models are the most in need of looking at, as book 2 went crazy on how much micro-font they could cram onto a model's card (looking at you Showgirls), it makes sense to re-evaluate them, clean up their abilities, and add a few as needed, to make them comparable to newer models of similar ss costs. Once that's been done, and a few other seemingly duds (like the pistoleros) are revised, the power creep shouldn't seem so blatant. I don't think models should lose what they have, but plenty should gain what they probably should have had that they hadn't yet thought of as powers yet.

[Dracomax]

It could use some fine-tuning, but I like the idea of the idea. I'd extend the killed masters / henchmen courtesy over to all named models, though, really. How many times can an Ortega take a bullet and still show up in the next game?

Not that I want to implement the campaign rules over to the basic / tournament game, but something along the lines of the model isn't really eliminated after all does make some sense for allowing completion of strats and schemes post-mortem. As killing off a master doesn't just end the game right then and there, like it might in other games (Puppet Wars, Warmahordes, etc.), my idea of the next in charge becomes the new target of things like Deliver a Message might not be that far-fetched.

One thing I can think of, just from a storytelling point of view, is if the counter it drops is used to summon something else--for instance, if the corpse of Santiago is used to summon a mindless zombie, then it probably shouldn't be usable to accomplish schemes.

[i_was_like_you]

One thing I can think of, just from a storytelling point of view, is if the counter it drops is used to summon something else--for instance, if the corpse of Santiago is used to summon a mindless zombie, then it probably shouldn't be usable to accomplish schemes.

You've got a point.

[Insert joke about how we can't tell the difference between regular Santiago and the mindless zombie one.

Things like the previously suggested not using low ss models as targets could come into play, though. It'd also mean not transferring objectives to such models.

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)

Besides, what if the item dropped is a marker not a counter (in addition to any counters they may drop)?

Edited April 11, 2013 by i_was_like_you
giving credit

[rgarbonzo]

If you make grudge against models that cost more than 3 or 4, players can avoid that by taking an entire crew of 2 soulstone models completely negating Grudge from jump.

[CRC]

If you make grudge against models that cost more than 3 or 4, players can avoid that by taking an entire crew of 2 soulstone models completely negating Grudge from jump.

That's fine. There's lots of ways to prevent your opponent from choosing certain schemes by army selection.

Remember that they get to see your army before choosing...