Malifaux 2.0 rumours?

[Forar]

And keep in mind this would be done without seeing your opponent's crew.

Sure, you've eliminated the ability to take Grudge, but if your opponent is running any form of burst/blast figures...

Seems like an awful lot of effort to shut down one scheme, especially considering how few masters could even make something like that work. Leveticus? Pre-cuddle Hamlin? I have doubts many masters could even field 17 two SS figures and a 3 (BAM, just gave me a 3ss target for Kill Protege!) to make up a 35 ss list (caches mess with this, of course).

[Alviaran]

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.

Then they have tied themselves to a very specific crew build to prevent you from taking Grudge. Remember, Schemes are chosen after the crew is revealed (and after deployment IIRC) so it's not like he knew you were taking Grudge and built a crew to make your scheme impossible. You select Grudge with full knowledge of your potential targets.

Now, another thing to suggest for Grow lists, is what if in those cases if a model is replaced, any schemes targeting it transfer to the new model. I don't have cards/books to look at right this moment, so maybe this already happens and I've missed it, but it is the kind of oversight that would fit with what I expect. (Doesn't Grow sacrifice the model and the new one comes in?)

Which is actually another thing in general, why do models combining or separating (Coryphee, Steampunk Arachnids, etc.) Sacrifice to do that? This is one place where I think the system allows some abuse and again, breaks the narrative flow and should actually get a little more complicated. Remove From Play. New term. RFP generates no tokens, etc. When a model is RFPd, if it is replaced by another model, all effects from one model carry over to the next (so if you have a buff up on one Coryphee, when she dances together, the Duet is now affected by it. Similarly, if I have nailed one Coryphee with a debuff, the Duet now suffers from it). And as a related bit, if a Scheme targets a model that is RFPd and replaced, it now transfers to the target. If I Grudge your Coryphee and it dances together, you don't get to deny my Grudge. My Grudge is now on the Duet instead. Yeah, my life just got a lot harder, but it is still possible. (And when a model separates that is the target of a Scheme or suffering an opponent controlled effect, the opponent chooses which model it goes onto. If there is a buff from the model's controller, that model's controller chooses which one it goes onto. IE player control of the effects they applied while it was one model).

Because dammit, I want that blue Coryphee dead and I am going to have it dead one way or another!

[i_was_like_you]

Maybe I posted this on another thread, but, from the FAQ, under Strategies and Schemes:

How do I determine which model is the target of a Scheme if it's Replaced by another model or models?

When a target of a Scheme is Replaced, the new model is now the target. If the model was Replaced by more than one model, the player with the Scheme can choose which of those models is now the target.

[Omenbringer]

I really dont have an issue with a player chosing to remove the target of Grudge or Kill Protege via Drain Souls. Sure it may deny 1 or 2 VP (if you chose to announce it) but it also denies them an expensive or lynchpin model.

[Forar]

I really dont have an issue with a player chosing to remove the target of Grudge or Kill Protege via Drain Souls. Sure it may deny 1 or 2 VP (if you chose to announce it) but it also denies them an expensive or lynchpin model.

Not necessarily.

Imagine this (I don't feel to be an extreme) example; I play Hoffman with his usual mount, a Peacekeeper. 9 soul stones, over 1/4 of my crew (at a typical 35ss game).

I can proceed to use that Peacekeeper to roam up and down the board, jump targets of opportunity, and with a protect chain in place I might even put it up for a daring battle or two (hard to pass up an opportunity to flurry, even a risky one).

Turn 5 or 6 rolls around, things are looking close, objectives are being tallied, victory is in the balance..

And I blow away my own Peacekeeper. Might need that stone (/sarcasm).

No offense Omen, but the impression I get is that people keep presenting the 'they lose an expensive figure' as though it were a massive drawback, when the reality is that they don't necessarily have to blow up the target on turn 1. It's very possible that they might get use of that expensive figure for part or even almost all of the game, only tossing it away when it actually becomes threatened, or the end is near enough that it's unlikely to matter if it lives or dies. And if it comes under attack and then gets its soul drained? Now you've wasted time and/or ap avoiding and/or dealing with it, all for naught. Leave it alone? Kind of risky given the power of most high SS figures (not all, but many). Go after it? Risk wasting precious AP and turns hunting something that may get voluntold into suicide before you can land the killing blow.

Now, the counter to that is, hey, maybe I blow it up at the end of turn 6 and the game goes to turn 7, 8, 10, whatever, and you run roughshod over me in those extra turns because Hoffman is standing around with his thumb out begging for a ride (assuming I didn't think far enough/wasn't able to get another construct over to replace it, even in a reduced fashion).

But now we're in hypotheticals on hypotheticals.

The point I'm making is that the piece doesn't have to be eaten right off the bat to deny someone VP, and thus potentially a victory. It might even just be the last action of the entire game, and being capped at 75% max points is a pretty hefty issue. Maybe we run vastly different metas, but I don't even see schemes go unannounced all that often anymore. Sure, sometimes someone will do so just to keep their opponent guessing, but it's not exactly a far fetched situation where, under fire and threat of capture, a Master will look his or her faithful lieutenant in the eye and calmly tear his or her soul out just to deny their opponent VP.

Yes, in casual/friendly games one can have an agreement not to do so.

However the necessity of such caveats indicates not that the playerbase can find ways around those issues, but that it would be better for the game's continued health to deal with such issues in an official manner, be it an update/errata or replacing the scheme altogether.

Not to belabor the point, but it's not just as cut and dry as 'oh, then they lose access to 20-35+% of their starting crew', when in fact they could easily use that model from turn one to six before misdirecting its attention and figuratively putting both barrels through its confused little skull.

Poor Santiago.

:-(

Edited April 12, 2013 by Forar

[Omenbringer]

Not necessarily.

Imagine this (I don't feel to be an extreme) example; I play Hoffman with his usual mount, a Peacekeeper. 9 soul stones, over 1/4 of my crew (at a typical 35ss game).

I can proceed to use that Peacekeeper to roam up and down the board, jump targets of opportunity, and with a protect chain in place I might even put it up for a daring battle or two (hard to pass up an opportunity to flurry, even a risky one).

Turn 5 or 6 rolls around, things are looking close, objectives are being tallied, victory is in the balance..

And I blow away my own Peacekeeper. Might need that stone (/sarcasm).

No offense Omen, but the impression I get is that people keep presenting the 'they lose an expensive figure' as though it were a massive drawback, when the reality is that they don't necessarily have to blow up the target on turn 1. It's very possible that they might get use of that expensive figure for part or even almost all of the game, only tossing it away when it actually becomes threatened, or the end is near enough that it's unlikely to matter if it lives or dies.

The game is usually decided by those turns anyways.

Additionally, just causing my opponent to have to worry about protecting that model gives an advantage and dictates the way the piece is played. This is the reason you choose to anounce schemes in the first play (at least the ones you dont have to anounce).

Lastly, only a Leader can use Drain Souls (not a Henchman hired by a Master). Poor Initiative, out activation and good mobility can all hamper the "use and sac once its done its job" strategy. Leaving it on the table past your leaders first activation is very risky.

Perhaps its just because I mainly play a crew build that can do those things very well that I dont see a problem with it (if you leave that target sitting on the board past your masters first activation, it will more than likely be gone before it can go again despite anything short of the combination of Slow to Die and Use Soul Stones). Aside from Som'er and the Pig Boomernag list there are plenty of crews builds (across many factions) that can do nearly the same thing.

[Forar]

*shrug* And in my experience, even a chompy-bomb can't kill a Protect Chained peacekeeper on turn one reliably. And starting in melee range of a peacekeeper is... not wise.

The hard facts are that you can cap an opponent at 75% vp or less, making things significantly less than a fair fight, at the cost of some level of playing cautiously. Especially since crews are selected before schemes, meaning that unless you build a "one turn kill whatever I want no matter what nyah nyah" crew every time you play, it is not impossible that based on opposing crews and/or terrain, a model may remain all but unkillable until ones opponent decides to screw you out of 2 VP, and gets a bonus stone to boot.

Just because it isn't an issue to you (and given your sig, I assume you play outcasts, so yes, having access to Leveticus, Gremlins and the Viks would indeed make speedy killing stuff easy), but personally I wouldn't even hedge an entire Perdita bomb or Peacekeeper rush on a chance at getting a scheme when my opponent might win out, murder their own figure in response and leave me with my... ahem, hanging in the breeze.

Just because it isn't an issue to you/in your meta doesn't mean it isn't an issue in general.

Hell, it isn't even an issue for me and in my meta, but I identify this as problematic game mechanic, especially while accounting for a competitive (read: big prizes on the line) scene.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Forar

[Omenbringer]

Off topic but...

Gremlins actually and mainly Som'er running the Pig Boomerang. Unless you stay way back in the deployment zone (and I mean in the deepest corner of it) it isn't difficult to get a full Pig Squadron at any model you want dead. Reprisal isn't much of a worry either since you'll usually have out activated and also will be pulled out of melee range after delivering their nibbles.

Collodi and Zoraida (well actually the little dolls they hang out with) can easily do it as well. They wont have to worry about reprisal since the Peace Keeper will more than likely be dead or have to test against Wicked Intentions (Flurry also isn't much of a worry since all those melee strikes have to be against the same target).

Of course the easiest way to counter the "Sac the target to deny Vp's" is just to not anounce the scheme. There is a reason it is worth an additional VP when announced.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Omenbringer

[Forar]

Not announcing is, in a fashion, intentionally giving up 1 vp.

Now, I'm not entirely scoffing at the idea. I've held a scheme back now and then to keep my opponent guessing, but I think the clearest example of higher stakes play and the importance of VP (especially in a timed setting, adding extra complexity and pressure to the situation) would be the tournament reports that spring up around Gencon, Adepticon and whatnot. I'm not a tournament player myself (hell, I just picked up the game a year ago), but during the big threads that surrounded those competitions, the question was asked a few times about whether or not people (in the non-casual competitions) bothered hiding schemes. The responses I saw essentially boiled down to "Hahahahahahahah no."

I mean, unless you're taking Kidnap or something else that you can not reveal and still get 2 vp off of, it seemed to be practically unheard of.

And while I'm not one to advocate balancing a game purely around the most high stakes/hardcore/intensely competitive scenes, I do think that those are situations where some of the best and brightest are going to come together and find the most optimal route to victory as possible, and/or highlight potential balance issues.

I mean, we've already seen the strats get an official makeover for tournament play. Only a (soul) stone's throw away to update some errant schemes as well.

Maybe look at a few of the guild ones while we're at it.

... I hate most of my faction schemes. >.<

[Omenbringer]

Not announcing is, in a fashion, intentionally giving up 1 vp.

Anouncing something that is easily denied by target sacrifice is like giving up 2 so it is a decision.

Having watched a lot of those "Higher Stakes" games at GenCon the big reason schemes are not hidden more is because most of those games only go to turn 4 due to the tight time limits. In that environment certain Schemes (Body Guard and Hold Out specifically) can be very diifcult to deny. The tournament scene definitely favors certain crew builds and scheme selections. Even the new tournament Strats aren't entirely devoid of imbalances.

I definitely differ to the experiences of those that either ran these events or placed well in them to provide a better explanation.

I definitely agree though that some of the Faction and Master specific schemes could use some re-evaluation. Some of them aren't bad (Guild Specific Raid!, Neverborn Specific Reclaim Malifaux or Kidnap) but others are virtually impossible (Rasputina's Reflections of December) or very contradictory to the normal playstyle (Som'er's Pig Food).

I have said before I dont consider Malifaux a great super competitive tournament level game, its strength is in the "Character Driven Skirmish game" that it is marketed as. To each his own though I know some really like it.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Omenbringer

[Forar]

Anouncing something that is easily denied by target sacrifice is like giving up 2 so it is a decision.

However, I (and others) are suggesting an Option C: Change the schemes/strategies and/or abilities that render those schemes problematic. Why accept the status quo when the status is not... quo? [/Dr Horrible]

The above noted suggestion to allow message deliveries to be 'passed down the line' (still funny) could be adopted. "If the target of a Grudge is killed or sacrificed by an opponent, that player may choose a new target for the scheme". "If a Protege is killed by an opponent, their model with the next highest soul stone total becomes the new target. In the event of a tie, the player with the scheme may choose the target".

Of course, this would need to be better worded, but I'm not a professional game designer, so I'd leave that in Wyrd's capable hands to get it right. The basic idea being "look, it was clever for a while to assassinate your own stuff, but there aren't all that many 'good' schemes, so stop abusing mechanics to deny them >.< ".

And I say this as someone who has in the past used Witchling Bombs and called in fire support by targeting my own stuff as well. If Wyrd turned around and said that this wasn't quite what they had in mind, it'd require a change of tactics but I'd understand that, yeah, throwing fireballs at my own guys probably wasn't what they had in mind.

[Omenbringer]

However, I (and others) are suggesting an Option C: Change the schemes/strategies and/or abilities that render those schemes problematic...If Wyrd turned around and said that this wasn't quite what they had in mind, it'd require a change of tactics but I'd understand that

I am also suggesting alternate "tactics/ Strategies" than the "Status Quo" that are effective right now.

VP denial is a part of the game (hell every game really) and has been from the start, whether we are talking about Sacing a model to deny Kill Protege/ Grudge, hiding the leader model to deny VP for Assasinate or running into your opoponents deployment zone to deny VP for Hold Out. The game is about working to achieve your Strats/ Schemes and preventing your opponent from achieving theirs. It is really one of the strengths of the game.

The above noted suggestion to allow message deliveries to be 'passed down the line' (still funny) could be adopted. "If the target of a Grudge is killed or sacrificed by an opponent, that player may choose a new target for the scheme". "If a Protege is killed by an opponent, their model with the next highest soul stone total becomes the new target. In the event of a tie, the player with the scheme may choose the target".

All this really does is shift the denial tactic to "Bury" effects (which are already just as effective as Sacing friendly models).

Denial is a part of the game. The randomly generated Strategies are the biggest example of this.

The basic idea being "look, it was clever for a while to assassinate your own stuff, but there aren't all that many 'good' schemes, so stop abusing mechanics to deny them

There are plenty of Good general schemes (and even some Faction or Master specific ones), especially if your opponent has a Strategy that requires them to move somewhere specific. Some of my favorites are Stake a Claim, Frame for Murder, Steal Relic, Hold Out and Breakthrough.

Scheme selection is just as important as Crew selection and deployment all of which occur after the random Strategy has been determined.

[Forar]

VP denial is a part of the game (hell every game really) and has been from the start, whether we are talking about Sacing a model to deny Kill Protege/ Grudge, hiding the leader model to deny VP for Assasinate or running into your opoponents deployment zone to deny VP for Hold Out. The game is about working to achieve your Strats/ Schemes and preventing your opponent from achieving theirs. It is really one of the strengths of the game.

However, there is a difference between holding back a leader or making sure a figure is parked in their deployment zone, and executing that model. The former are interactive, and can be responded to. You can try to get at the Leader (suicidal as it may be). You can try to keep the fight far enough away that it's not easy to do, or keep enough things near your zone that anything heading there gets eaten alive (hopefully). These are in question, and not absolutes, depending on terrain, crews, luck, player skill and other factors.

"I drain soul my protege and then suicide my master, now you can get a max of 2 points, too bad you flipped Deliver a Message and chose Kill Protege" isn't good gameplay. It's not interactive. There is a difference between making a poor call with Kill Protege while I'm fielding nothing higher than Papa Loco (a figure quite likely to suicide) versus choosing it on Von Schill and having a Vik drain his soul out at turn 5 when he's finally cornered.

All this really does is shift the denial tactic to "Bury" effects (which are already just as effective as Sacing friendly models).

So include them. "Any figure buried at the end of a game will be considered killed for the purposes of Kill Protege, Grudge, etc."

While there are a few masters with bury effects, other than Collette I can't think of many crews that can reliably do so without incurring some risk. Or perhaps that would indeed need further adjustments, but even just narrowing down the band of abilities that can abuse these wouldn't be a bad thing. Taking it from "every crew" to "some crews" is progress.

There are plenty of Good general schemes (and even some Faction or Master specific ones), especially if your opponent has a Strategy that requires them to move somewhere specific. Some of my favorites are Stake a Claim, Frame for Murder, Steal Relic, Hold Out and Breakthrough.

Steal Relic? Man, I play Guild against Lady J, Lilith and the Viks. The day I choose that is the day I've decided I want to walk my crews into meat grinders. :-P

Scheme selection is just as important as Crew selection and deployment all of which occur after the random Strategy has been determined.

I agree.

However, as it stands, there are currently "traps" in scheme selection. Choices that an opponent can shut down, probably reliably, with minimal or zero ability to respond, and depending on the state of the game, possibly at minimal cost. Are these issues that crop up every game? Of course not. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Given the vast array of possible crews, board layouts, strategies flipped and player skill, there'll never be a perfect balance where all of the schemes and strats are equally viable for every crew. I'm not asking for the impossible.

I'm just advocating reviewing the schemes in a way that makes more of them viable/less of a detriment.

I think it's telling, if nothing else, that so many tournaments use Unique schemes. That alone indicates that, if left to their own devices, many players will simply use the same small, safe® selection, and have to be forced to make the tactical choice when to use V scheme in conjunction with W crew, against X opponent, on Y board with Z strat, but that tactical choice isn't lost if the schemes are improved. Instead of 'deciding when to bite down and bear it' with the notably less optimal ones, it becomes a tough choice between (all else being equal) good ones.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Forar

[Kriltic]

I'd agree most Schemes need re-balancing against one another. Some are either silly or just plain bad. For example when was the last time you saw Seamus take his own Scheme in a competitive environment? I suspect its not that common. Assassinate, Bodyguard, Stake a Claim, Hold Out, Breakthrough are the most common ones as they are the easiest generic Schemes to achieve. I would keep these the same but change some of the others like below

Grudge

'Select one enemy non-master model. If this model is not on the board at the end of the encounter you score 1VP. If this model is killed or sacrificed by a friendly non-master model, you instead score 2VP. This Scheme must be announced'

Kill Protegee

'Select one enemy Henchmen (or the minion with the highest SS cost, if there is a tie for highest SS cost then you may choose which is the target). If the nominated model is not on the board at the end of the encounter you score 1VP. If this model is killed or sacrificed by a friendly model, you instead score 2VP. This Scheme must be announced'

Frame for Murder

'Note down 2 friendly models. For each of these nominated models that are killed or sacrificed by an enemy master or henchmen, you score +1VP. This Scheme is not announced'

If you combine this with say a cap of 6VP for each game, since its very hard to get over 8VP in a normal game. (I believe only Jack Daw allows you to do this.) You can still kill your own models but it still doesn't stop a player from capping out and they are still awarded a VP for you killing them. I realise this does make for an easy VP against lists that rely on killing their own models but trying to fairly balance that against simply killing your own models to deny VP is no easy matter.

[AtomicKeen]

I've heard that the malifaux child gains melee master and that everyone will be wanting one in their crews.

That's hilarious

[Claymore65]

This has been a pretty interesting discussion. I really like Kriltic's suggestions. I like the reduced VP idea. It allows sacrificing your minions to be an option, but not nearly as attractive of one. It would prevent you from taking a trap option and prevents your opponent from completely denying you VP, but allows a bit of denial.

On denial, I agree that VP denial is and should be a large part of the game. I think that's partially why lots of the character specific schemes are very hard to achieve. If you, for example, got VP for summoning X minions with Ramos, this isn't very hard to do and it may or may not be preventable by your opponent. I agree that if your opponent takes Assasinate, you should be able to deny them VP. But I think that should be done by hiding your master, keeping them safe with structures/your own units, not by simply killing him yourself. This is something your opponent can get around, by taking fast moving units, maybe relying on ranged attacks or the structure your master is hidden in might become the location of an extremely brutal pitched battle. That sounds like a lot of fun actually. I like the idea of reduced VP with this one as well. Maybe if you kill your own Master, your opponent only gains 1 VP instead of 2, but he should still get some VP. After all, your goal was to kill the enemy master and he is dead...

[Omenbringer]

There is a difference between making a poor call with Kill Protege while I'm fielding nothing higher than Papa Loco (a figure quite likely to suicide) versus choosing it on Von Schill...

I get what your saying but VonSchill is a very poor Kill Protege/ Grudge target to begin with (well in truth he is a bad target for almost any Strategy or Scheme).

So include them. "Any figure buried at the end of a game will be considered killed for the purposes of Kill Protege, Grudge, etc."

Grudge gains another method of success with this "Fix" rather than being contingent upon only melee strikes and melee spells.

Honestly though I think (and have for a while now) that the easiest way to fix these schemes in particular (rather than trying to force fair play and avoid "Douche Baggery" which isn't really possible) is just to change the additional VP from being contingent upon being "announced" to "if completed by a certain turn" that way it is secret.

While there are a few masters with bury effects, other than Collette I can't think of many crews that can reliably do so without incurring some risk. Or perhaps that would indeed need further adjustments, but even just narrowing down the band of abilities that can abuse these wouldn't be a bad thing. Taking it from "every crew" to "some crews" is progress.

You have forgotten any Guild Leader (well Guild Model actually) can easily Bury themselves via a Death Marshal's Pine Box without risk (there used to even be a Lady Justice Super Buff Tactic that relied on it).

Steal Relic? Man, I play Guild against Lady J, Lilith and the Viks. The day I choose that is the day I've decided I want to walk my crews into meat grinders. :-P

Why not take it against those crews? They dont have ridiculously high WP and succeeding gives you at least a VP. Add in that it doesn't have to be announced and it isn't that bad a choice. The great thing about Malifaux is that you can win despite losing models (or your leader).

I think it's telling, if nothing else, that so many tournaments use Unique schemes. That alone indicates that, if left to their own devices, many players will simply use the same small, safe® selection, and have to be forced to make the tactical choice when to use V scheme in conjunction with W crew, against X opponent, on Y board with Z strat, but that tactical choice isn't lost if the schemes are improved. Instead of 'deciding when to bite down and bear it' with the notably less optimal ones, it becomes a tough choice between (all else being equal) good ones.

Again I dont consider Malifaux a great "high level" competitive game, its strength is in the casual play envionment.

The need to restrict Schemes to single usage, reduce the available Strategies (there are only 5 in the event pool) or restrict Crew selections (single Master, single faction, hiring pool or fixed crews) illustrates that better than anything else.

Even with these "restrictions" though there is still plenty that isn't viable in the competitive environment (especially as the restrictions increase).

"Eye for an Eye" is almost impossible for crews that can't easily replace losses or kill tons and is almost never choosen (even in freindly games). Slower crews will never choose "Breakthrough" since they struggle enough to just get to the center of the board. The new batch of Tournament Strategies (though an improvement) strongly favors mobile, durable (either individually or via easy replacement) and numerous crews.

Now dont misunderstand me, I agree that there are some things that need to be re-evaluated for general play (mainly in model re-balancing) but the competitive environment is what it is (usually the worst in people, especially as the prizes get better). To that I will add though that the events I have participated in, ran or watched, I have not seen the "Douche Baggery" that seems so prevailent in a lot of other games. Even Hamelin "pre-fix" wasn't abundant at these events (and in a lot of cases completely missing).

Though I get that there are calls to fix the competitive environment, I have also noticed a lack of input from the "Competitve level" players and organizers (mainly those that compete or organize the events at GenCon and Adepticon though not exclusively them). What I am curious about is how rampant these "VP denial" tactics are in that environment (from my own recollections of the last three GenCon Malifaux events not very). Is it really prevailent or is it just really noticeable/annoying when it happens (sort of like the great Red Joker debate)?

[Claymore65]

Personally, VP denial hasn't been very prevalent in the casual games I've played. I think that is mostly because nobody has really considered doing that. I'm very happy about that fact, that my gaming group has been pretty fair and reasonable. I agree that it is not the biggest problem neccesarily, and model fixes should probably come first.

However, I do say that it is a definite flaw within the game, and why should we just leave the flaw if it can be easily fixed. As you said earlier, there are other schemes/strategies that could use some tune up, such as Eye for an Eye or most Master Specific schemes. While yes, you can just ignore them, why ignore them when in the future (no need to rush) you can fix the problems and improve the game. It's like a small pothole on a small road. Sure, most people might be able to ignore it, and others won't even drive on that road, but for a small group of people that pothole might ruin their driving experiences. Sure, it's not the biggest problem, but if you can fix it easily, why not do it?

[Kriltic]

Ive been looking at all the current schemes and looking at ways to rebalance them more like the 3 I suggested before where they can be done in 'stages'. How do these sound as a few other ideas;

My Little Friend (Seamus only)

You earn 1vp if a friendly Seamus kills an enemy model, while it is fleeing, with his .50 Flintlock. You score +1vp if this scheme is announced.

Lay These Souls To Rest (Lady Justice only)

If Lady Justice has killed 3 enemy models by the end of the encounter, you score 1vp. You score +1vp if you announce this scheme.

[Gruesome]

Ive been looking at all the current schemes and looking at ways to rebalance them more like the 3 I suggested before where they can be done in 'stages'. How do these sound as a few other ideas;

My Little Friend (Seamus only)

You earn 1vp if a friendly Seamus kills an enemy model, while it is fleeing, with his .50 Flintlock. You score +1vp if this scheme is announced.

Lay These Souls To Rest (Lady Justice only)

If Lady Justice has killed 3 enemy models by the end of the encounter, you score 1vp. You score +1vp if you announce this scheme.

How would you define fleeing so that its not debatable?

For the LadyJ one, I like where you were going with the name, so I wonder if it doesn't thematically make sense that she must "Final Repose" 3 enemies that would normally have dropped corpses when they died?

[Dracomax]

How would you define fleeing so that its not debatable?

For the LadyJ one, I like where you were going with the name, so I wonder if it doesn't thematically make sense that she must "Final Repose" 3 enemies that would normally have dropped corpses when they died?

The only problem there is it only makes sense if she's A)going against graverobbers, so models drop corpse counters , or if it counts even if models would not normally drop counters.

and it would be entirely useless against about a third of all crews, just because they normally don't drop corpses(not like we haven't heard that complaint before, even if it does normally come from ressers). If that isn't a problem with a master specific schme, then by all means, go ahead with A or B.

[Gruesome]

The only problem there is it only makes sense if she's A)going against graverobbers, so models drop corpse counters , or if it counts even if models would not normally drop counters.

lol...

yeah...

In my universe, there are always corpses because I always have graverobbers.

[Dracomax]

lol...

yeah...

In my universe, there are always corpses because I always have graverobbers.

In my universe, I sometimes play Leveticus and frustrate everybody.

[Kriltic]

I didnt mention anything extra for Lady J as it makes no sense that she cannot complete her scheme by killing Spirits or by killing Constructs powered by SS. So I chose to keep it simple and just kill 3 enemies.

As for the definition of fleeing. Isnt that already defined in the rulebook? It causes a negative flip for resisting various things.

[Fetid Strumpet]

If you mean falling back, yes it is defined, and only Avatar Seamus has any hope of completing that Scheme as detailed above. If they decide to rebalance schemes then the master specific ones all need to be approximately equally difficult for a master to accomplish. Seamus cannot easily make anyone run, and then requiring him, personally, to then deal the death blow? That's pretty much as difficult as, if not more so, than having the CCK kill a 7SS or above cost model.