Malifaux 2.0 rumours?

[Thulis]

I wouldn't mind some more clarification on abilities, but I would hate to see any drastic changes to the way the game is played on a high level...

[Alviaran]

Mk2 needs to happen IMO, if only to rewrite the rules in a better fashion. Things like the difference between attacks and Attacks need to be fixed. Similarly, I think the schemes need to be revisited since you see the exact same ones repeatedly.

And most of all, Drain Soul needs to be removed from the game. Yeah, it's funny and characterful. It is also a prime example of an ability that just ruins some games. You could MAYBE keep it if you redid the schemes so that a model sacrificed in no way affects the scoring of schemes, then sure, it could maybe be ok. I'd still rather see it taken out of the game entirely. Return it for story encounters and such where it makes sense flavour-wise.

There are a number of models that can probably use a second pass balance wise as well. Some people like having really powerful stuff and really weak stuff for whatever reason. I don't. I like everything being viable and there being no possibilities of things like filth lists. If there was a MK2, maybe they could revisit avatars as well.

As it is, Malifaux is nowhere near what I want from a game to come close to take over being my "main game". There are a lot of things I like and a lot I don't. The rules themselves are the biggest problem I have with the game and I hope they get cleaned up. People like to make snide remarks about Privateer's MK2, about the "dumbing down" of the game, but the truth is, the game is so successful now because MK2 fixed some grievous balance issues and most importantly, streamlined their rules into a TIGHT rules system. How the rules work is so much clearer in Warmachine than pretty much any other game on the market. Mk1 was not that clean. I hope Malifaux cleans up its rules so that it can truly explode in popularity.

[Omenbringer]

Drain Soul needs to be removed from the game. Yeah, it's funny and characterful. It is also a prime example of an ability that just ruins some games. You could MAYBE keep it if you redid the schemes so that a model sacrificed in no way affects the scoring of schemes, then sure, it could maybe be ok. I'd still rather see it taken out of the game entirely. Return it for story encounters and such where it makes sense flavour-wise.

I wouldn't mind it being limited to a once per encounter action.

There are a number of models that can probably use a second pass balance wise as well. Some people like having really powerful stuff and really weak stuff for whatever reason. I don't. I like everything being viable and there being no possibilities of things like filth lists. If there was a MK2, maybe they could revisit avatars as well.

I would be willing to bet that a few models see a slight Rise while others see a slight step down. About the only model that I think really needs some serious work is the poor Malifaux Child (though I have a few ideas on how to make him at least worth considering).

People like to make snide remarks about Privateer's MK2, about the "dumbing down" of the game, but the truth is, the game is so successful now because MK2 fixed some grievous balance issues and most importantly, streamlined their rules into a TIGHT rules system. How the rules work is so much clearer in Warmachine than pretty much any other game on the market. Mk1 was not that clean.

I agree that the core rules recieved a substantial improvement from Mk1 to Mk 2 however there are still a lot of "grievous balance issues" (especially when viewed at the tournament level) in the game. There is a reason you see virtually the same Warcasters/ Warlocks and also very similar lists event after event. Not everything is viable even in "friendly" games.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Omenbringer

[Alviaran]

I wouldn't mind it being limited to a once per encounter action.

I would still despise it unless it was along with a fixing of schemes. That you can Drain Soul and remove the opponent's ability to accomplish a scheme is ridiculous. Oh, you brought your Kill Protege target to his Hard To Kill and are gonna' finish him on the next activation (not uncommon)? I'll activate my master and Drain his Soul, denying you even the chance for those 2 VPs. In general, schemes are just bad. The goal is to promote player interaction because you need to accomplish yours while preventing your opponent's. The problem is that so many can just be prevented while losing fairly little.

And this is also why you see the same schemes over and over again. Because even those easily subverted by silly things like Drain Soul are just the best ones to keep coming back to. Eye for an Eye and Extermination? And then you get really, really easy faction schemes like the Arcanist ones and Kidnap while so many others, like the Rezzer ones, are so difficult you never really see them.

I would be willing to bet that a few models see a slight Rise while others see a slight step down. About the only model that I think really needs some serious work is the poor Malifaux Child (though I have a few ideas on how to make him at least worth considering).

I think there are a number that can use some slight tweaks. I love Kirai but her strict suit reliance (which seems more luck related than dice), just makes her miserable to play at times. How many other crews seem to just not function without their suits? Why are the Twins Rare 2 and 7ss? Why does Pandora exist? Etc. And I say both of those last two as a Neverborn player)

I agree that the core rules recieved a substantial improvement from Mk1 to Mk 2 however there are still a lot of "grievous balance issues" (especially when viewed at the tournament level) in the game. There is a reason you see virtually the same Warcasters/ Warlocks and also very similar lists event after event. Not everything is viable even in "friendly" games.

I disagree because you see a wide variety win a variety of different events. You see the same casters a lot and very similar lists...but they don't win. Same as in Magic. The most popular or perceived most powerful. It's why when people claimed Gaspy2 was the most broken thing in the game (or even Cryx in general), I kept asking for proof of them winning all the major events. There was no such thing. Oh, Cryx is VERY popular in tournaments and Gaspy2 in particular showed up a lot, but the simple fact is, a lot of people suck at the game competitively and/or jump on what they think/are told is the most powerful thing that gives them the best chance of winning a tournament. You want gross imbalance, see MK1 Vlad2 who won ridiculously high amounts of tournaments.

So, bringing it back to Malifaux, for a long time Hamelin and Pandora (and previously Dreamer Slingshot and Alp Bomb to lesser extents) have not only been necessarily powerful, but negative play experiences. Yes, as a credit to the community, a lot of people refrained from playing them because of how bad they were to play against, regardless of the game's actual outcome. But that shouldn't be a thing. People should play whatever they want and not have to feel guilty of it. I feel there is no such thing in Warmachine. The balance is pretty damn good. The meta is ever evolving (if you see someone espousing the doom and gloom of colossals, they have no clue about the competitive nature of the game).

[Omenbringer]

I disagree because you see a wide variety win a variety of different events. You see the same casters a lot and very similar lists...but they don't win. Same as in Magic. The most popular or perceived most powerful. It's why when people claimed Gaspy2 was the most broken thing in the game (or even Cryx in general), I kept asking for proof of them winning all the major events. There was no such thing. Oh, Cryx is VERY popular in tournaments and Gaspy2 in particular showed up a lot, but the simple fact is, a lot of people suck at the game competitively and/or jump on what they think/are told is the most powerful thing that gives them the best chance of winning a tournament. You want gross imbalance, see MK1 Vlad2 who won ridiculously high amounts of tournaments...

People should play whatever they want and not have to feel guilty of it. I feel there is no such thing in Warmachine. The balance is pretty damn good. The meta is ever evolving (if you see someone espousing the doom and gloom of colossals, they have no clue about the competitive nature of the game).

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Warmachine/ Hordes (Mk 2) has plenty of models that are borderline useless as well as things that are very negative play experiences or just ridiculously over powered.

The meta may be ever evolving but the disparity between things is as well. Things like the Haley Storm Wall list are just plain sick (as is Haley in general) where as the Farrow are borderline unplayable in all but the friendliest of environments. I enjoy Warmachine and Hordes but what keeps me from playing more is the balance issues that are still present even after the Mk2 rebalancing.

[Alviaran]

I enjoy Warmachine and Hordes but what keeps me from playing more is the balance issues that are still present even after the Mk2 rebalancing.

And yet you turn to Malifaux? Ok. We are going to have to disagree. There are some things I feel are fundamentally broken about Malifaux and cannot be fixed, but I let them go because they are intrinsic to Malifaux itself, such as the card mechanic. But there are so many balance issues and NPEs. Meh.

Malifaux is unlikely to ever be able to overtake Warmachine for me. Having attended a number of tournaments for Warmachine, I also feel the competitive scene is a lot healthier. The fact eHaley double Stormwall didn't win the Mayhem Cup or IMC a few weeks ago shows that the list is not as degenerative as people think. I also am used to killing Haley like a boss. Aside from her ridiculous feat turn, I feel I have more game against her with a general list than I do against Pandora with a specialized list. That is the strength of that game. You don't see certain lists or casters necessarily rise to the top, but certain players. A bunch of the big name competitive players last year swapped armies at the Gencon Hardcore, most of them IIRC playing armies they have never played, only played against. All but one of them went X-1 too I believe.

[Omenbringer]

And yet you turn to Malifaux? Ok. We are going to have to disagree. There are some things I feel are fundamentally broken about Malifaux and cannot be fixed, but I let them go because they are intrinsic to Malifaux itself, such as the card mechanic. But there are so many balance issues and NPEs. Meh.

The card mechanic is actually the main reason I prefer Malifaux to other games. It gives me a lot more control over what happens (as it does for my opponent as well) than unopposed buckets of dice. The variable rather than static damage potential is another of the charms of the game for me. I also much prefer the alternating activations as opposed to the you go and then I get to go with whatever you didn't manage to utterly destroy. The last thing I really like is that the loss of my Leader model doesn't end the game (and doesn't even guaranty a loss).

I'll agree that there are still some possible NPE in the game however I have yet to find a game that doesn't have that (and Warmachine/ Hordes has always had a lot more in my experience unless I play only the "top Tier" stuff).

That is the strength of that game. You don't see certain lists or casters necessarily rise to the top, but certain players.

Rather odd statement since you see the same Casters/ Locks in the tournament results that are posted in No Quarter and online. A lot of the "Top Tier" Casters/Locks have been there since Mk1. Haley Mk2 is just as competitive as she was in Mk1 along with Vlad, Sorcha, Kreoss, Harbinger, Asphixious and Denghra.

Granted a lot of the top players are also running those lists but when someone manages to take the whole thing with Amon Ad Raza, Darius or any Farrow Warlock I might change my mind.

I enjoy "friendly" games of Warmachine and Hordes (having run Menoth for a very long time, Legion for awhile and now Trollbloods) but I absolutely abhore the competitive scene for the game. With a very few exceptions (pre-fixes for Hamelin, the Dreamer and Lilith Filth) even very bad matchups can result in victory with thoughtful Scheme selection, Crew hiring and play.

Keep in mind I am not saying that there aren't things that couldn't be improved with Malifaux just that the same could be said for any of the games. I can see the allure of Warmachine/ Hordes (I like the core Rule Set) but it doesn't really compete with Malifaux, its competition is Games Workshop (which still has a very large following despite some really bad rules over the years).

Of course neither of us is likely to change the others mind though I do enjoy the discussion (Warmachine being the ex-girlfriend that I see every once in a while just to remind myself why I left).

[Alviaran]

Heh. The ex girlfriend thing is a pretty apt comparison.

I feel that the card mechanic, especially with soulstones, gives the illusion of control but not really. I actually prefer that every die roll is completely independent, the odds are not influenced. I am not kidding the number of games I have had where my deck just HATED me. And via a single shuffle, I lost all ability to even play the game. It actually feels more luck based because the randomness of dice tends to even out a lot more quickly. I feel it is completely the illusion of control.

And yeah, I know that the power of soulstones is supposed to be potent. I don't like the way they feel though. Maybe it is just how bad my luck is, but the number of times I have had a flip soulstoned out of my range is frustrating. I despise Collette. Watching a Rail Golem get turned into a dress with literally ZERO way to fight it because he cheats in a 10+ of Tomes and then flips ANY Tome into play. So the much vaunted interaction just doesn't exist with a little luck (good or bad depending on which side of the table you're on).

And losing your caster, losing the game is extremely attractive to me. I HATED the slippery slope that is a factor of so many games like 40k (especially 40k). Since shooting is SO prevalent in that game, it becomes a game of trading shots. I shoot and kill 25% of your army because I got to go first. You can return fire with only 75% which means you just can't get as much dead as me. So I do it again. And so on. The maneuvering in that game is nothing like Malifaux or Warmachine. Warmachine, if played right (ie WITH scenarios. The game should not be played without them. Ever. No miniatures gamer should EVER be played without a scenario of some sort. Killing each other is fine for a beer and pretzels game when I'm already more than a few drinks in. Sober, it is not worth playing such games) means that gunlines just don't get nearly as much done. And that's actually where the ever evolving SR document shakes things up every year in a good way. Guns became too dominant last year so the scenarios are much better this year at making the guns on colossals not as much of a thing. You can feed your stuff into the guns bit by bit to win the scenario. If you are are thrashing it out in melee heavy in an attrition war, you can be losing that and still win by killing their caster. Funniest thing is when you think you have someone dead to rights so they play recklessly and end up taking that one in hundred chance and get you. Back them into a corner and people do crazy things.

People love to say with Malifaux to ignore the enemy and go for strategy/scenario. I disagree. Maybe it's because we don't play individual strategies (the tournament norm to my knowledge is usually shared, so that is what we play), but I find that identifying properly what to kill is important. Kill them and they cannot accomplish schemes/strat. I've won a lot of games locally by tabling them by turn 3-4 and having 2+ turns of my stuff accomplishing the non-combat schemes/strats unmolested. You cannot ignore schemes entirely, but my experience so far has been that killing them quickly enables my schemes. I am not making a decision between which to accomplish, but rather just delaying the scoring until after the murder is done. (Take this with the understanding I have done a grand total of one tournament so far and was disgusted with it not because of the tournament but my choice of master which had a game I literally did NOT get to play due to suit reliance)

And my bigger point, which I think has been lost, is that Warmachine has done some things very, VERY right with regards to their MK2 which drastically improved the game. I cannot entertain the idea that MK1 was better in any way but nostalgia for stupid things like the MK1 Cankerworm (god was he broken. I kind of miss him. But I realize how bad he was for the game in like 50% of matchups). And that those who think that any small collateral damage of flavour, like losing Shadow Wings for the more generic Teleport on Gaspy, are misguided because they are willing to sacrifice the game for some minor flavour. The game is undoubtedly better as a game now for the variety of changes in MK2. No matter what you feel about the balance of the game, the very rules themselves are so much tighter and better written than ANY other game out there.

Setting aside any models in Malifaux, the game is poorly written as a system. The rulebook is poorly written as a reference (my god do I despise that bloody index). The game has a lot of neat concepts and is a unique system that appeals to a lot of people. They are still in their MK1. Just like Warmachine, this allows the rules to have just holes and drastic misunderstandings. You don't need to raze it to the ground and rewrite from scratch, but the rules themselves need to be redone hardcore. A lot needs to be cleared up. THAT is what I'm saying. I think that once that is done, when things are tightened up and streamlined (this is NOT a dirty word, people. Some people seem to equate "streamlining" to "dumbed down" which is not true) the game becomes far more inviting because the rules are tight and clear about how things work. And that I think is when Malifaux will truly get the chance to explode in popularity. I think an obtuse ruleset is what is keeping the game back.

And that is my grand point that we strayed from. I think a 2.0 would be a great help to Malifaux on more than a balance level. And I think Wyrd should continue with their bit of copying some of PP's ideas (such as Gaining Grounds now) and copy the field test for balance issues. Get the community involved. I think Malifaux can only get better. They have learned a lot. And I think the resistance to a new edition is an unfounded fear, nothing else.

[Dracomax]

People love to say with Malifaux to ignore the enemy and go for strategy/scenario. I disagree. Maybe it's because we don't play individual strategies (the tournament norm to my knowledge is usually shared, so that is what we play), but I find that identifying properly what to kill is important. Kill them and they cannot accomplish schemes/strat. I've won a lot of games locally by tabling them by turn 3-4 and having 2+ turns of my stuff accomplishing the non-combat schemes/strats unmolested. You cannot ignore schemes entirely, but my experience so far has been that killing them quickly enables my schemes. I am not making a decision between which to accomplish, but rather just delaying the scoring until after the murder is done.

I agree to a point, but this is because more than half of the schemes and a good chunk of the strategies are rather kill-based. The others seem to rely mostly on mobility. Which means that if you are slow, or have a hard time killing the other crew, you are at a disadvantage to a crew that is fast, killy, or neverborn.

[Alviaran]

I agree to a point, but this is because more than half of the schemes and a good chunk of the strategies are rather kill-based. The others seem to rely mostly on mobility. Which means that if you are slow, or have a hard time killing the other crew, you are at a disadvantage to a crew that is fast, killy, or neverborn.

And maybe that is part of the thing for me and why I have the bias I do, I tend towards fast and killy crews. I started the game with Kirai exclusively (and this was long before the Shikome cuddle). VERY fast, VERY killy and fairly tanky. I moved into Neverborn with a particular love for the Dreamer and Zoraida. I'm currently playing Ten Thunders with my main three being Misaki, Lynch and McCabe (in that order). This tends to be my usual playstyle in almost everything, including Warmachine. This predilection just seems to serve me extraordinarily well in Malifaux. And I think that too often people just don't pay enough respect to how murder can swing even non-killy strats/schemes.

[i_was_like_you]

Oh, the rules definitely need some cleaning up. A useful index, assembled, checked, and re-checked after the final edition is complete, to show me every single page that the rule in question is mentioned, is a must. More rules referencing each other by name and page number would be nice, too.

Getting rid of things like Attack vs attack, Strike vs strike, etc., would go a long way towards clarifying things.

Instead of having some traits in the front and other traits in the back of the book, both in what seem to be quick reference locations, pick one or the other, and put them there.

The actual trait of living, put it on the cards, please. Yeah, I know that x, y, and z are non-living, but does a new player?

Aside from organizational and rephrasing, I think most of the rules are solid. Fix the phrasing, sort the book better, and things should get so much better.

Take a tip from Magic the Gathering, and post the stat cards, with up to the date rulings, on a database online, so players can click on them, see what the official Marshal of Marshals ruling is on it, and players can discuss killer combos and give illustrations of the rules right there.

[And no, putting the full stat cards up on a database isn't going to suddenly make people stop buying the models. It hasn't stopped people from buying Magic cards, even though people could print out a proxies of thousand dollar cards. Heck, all of the stats are in the books, anyways. People proxy, but generally only until the models are finally released. As we have to have official stat cards for tournaments, that at least for most of books 1 & 2 are available for $0.50 on the webstore, it should be a non-issue anyways. Don't let GW's iron-fisted control of even mentioning one of their own model's stats on their own forums influence your own business model.

[ooshawn]

I like malifaux precisely because it is complex. There are so many various interactions and it's a great change from warhammer 40k, where every model has just one specific job for the most part, and the only interesting models might be the psykers or HQ's. Honestly, I don't really care about the fact that there is a card mechanic to the game. It almost feels like i'm playing D&D 3.5 for some reason. Might be the fact that I get a specific number of actions with each model or something. Anyways I knew when I first read D&D 4.0, which was simplified down to retard levels in my own opinion, that I hated it with a passion. I feel like puppet wars was like a attempt to do something simple with malifaux and it fell flat on it's face, but I've never actually played puppet wars. Maybe it's the ****, who knows. So the point i'm coming to is, the game is damn near perfect. Except for a few model's rules being too good, and a ton of models just being Near worthless in game wise. There needs to be more schemes and strategies as well.

[i_was_like_you]

Bring it up to 26 Strategies, then eventually get to the full 52. That is, assuming that more than the current 13 could even be viable without seeming like repeats.

I don't want the rules dumbed down. If anything, I want them to stay about the same, but with better wording. Go into full legalese if need be, just so that it's even easier to see that RAW and RAI are as close to the same as is possible.

[Gorbad]

Anyways I knew when I first read D&D 4.0, which was simplified down to retard levels in my own opinion, that I hated it with a passion

Actually I keep meaning to draw up some force lists for D&D 4th as I think it could be used as an excellent skirmish game system. Probably a bit bloated but a pretty good combat system and that's really all D&D ever really was (except most of the time the rules were not good). Anyway, Malifaux does pretty well for a first edition game. The card mechanic let's you exert some control over the random factor without taking randomness away (still significantly less random than dice games) however there are sections of the rules that could benefit from being rewritten and tightened. Various interactions needs looking at, sections like terrain/cover could be easier etc. Tweaks, not wholesale change.

As for new strategies, if they can make good, balanced different ones cool. If it becomes 6 minor variations of each "core" one then don't bother.

[Alviaran]

I don't want the rules dumbed down. If anything, I want them to stay about the same, but with better wording. Go into full legalese if need be, just so that it's even easier to see that RAW and RAI are as close to the same as is possible.

That's what I am wanting to see happen. My problems with the rules as a game system can be fixed more from a balance perspective if the core game rules were cleaned up. They need to be better written, something I think Wyrd can certainly do. I feel Book 4 is a great indicator that if they did a full 2.0 with a rebalance and rewrite of the rules (not rebuild, but rewrite), I think they will do a great job. They have obviously learned a LOT about how to write and balance rules.

And your suggestion of adding the Living Characteristic is the sort of thing I would expect the opponents to a 2.0 to call a dumbing down. That sort of elitism is a barrier to entry. By just adding it, by just doing some streamlining, you can make the rules all fit together so much better which I think is a really great way to entice new players...and keep them. That's the big thing. Don't get players hooked and let them go. That's GW's policy. They bring people in with cool stories of scifi warfare and badass models...and then don't care about them after they bought a bunch of stuff. Too busy getting the next kid. Getting new players and keeping old ones do not need to be mutually exclusive. And I feel a tight, reliable ruleset helps to do both.

My biggest problem with the various similar rules in Malifaux is that if you don't know the rule, it can be really annoying to find out what it does. Making things easy to find and reference goes a long way to fixing the game up right there. For instance, I had a case where I didn't recall specifically WHAT Lifer worked on. So I checked the card. Just says Lifer. Checked the rulebook. Nothing there. Checked a book, just said Lifer. Remembered another model with the ability, FINALLY found what it did. I shouldn't have to do that. The icons that Warmachine uses for a lot of basic abilities were a great idea. It saves card space and it means that the rule is consistent in all cases. Here's a fun one for you: Irresistable. Not all cards say it cannot be ignored. We know that is how it works, but if there was a generic ruling for it, then we wouldn't need to spell out the rule, which is something they seem to want to do but haven't committed fully and properly to it.

Another example from Warmachine to show you it doesn't have to be on everything is Dark Shroud. The ability is on several models now. So is Sprint. But they are not generic abilities like Reach and Undead. So the latter have icons while the former are spelled out.

And in Malifaux, we already have some things that are generic, so the game has already moved that way. My favourite example is Lure. Lure is, IIRC, the same cc and suits no matter what model it is on, but how it works is dependent on the stats of the model in question.

I also like the idea of doing away with Brutal in favour of a Crit Strike that uses different suits. Do that with Flay and Rot too. Lets you really play with it more I feel.

I really want a Malifaux 2.0. I think this game is going to explode once that happens.

[Forar]

Anyways I knew when I first read D&D 4.0, which was simplified down to retard levels in my own opinion, that I hated it with a passion.

... you and I have such vastly different opinions on the matter I'm not entirely convinced we aren't from mirror universes.

And while I strive not to disparage people intentionally, I'll say this much; I don't have a goatee. ;-)

[DeleteAccount]

Some streamlining would indeed do wonders for the game, no denying it. A model rebalance and strategy and scheme facelift would make it shine. I'm also in the camp of screw Drain Soul.

[i_was_like_you]

Alvairan, you Lifer example is just one more reason I'm all in favor of just ditching the big art pic on the stat cards, and just spelling out rules.

...Nah, that doesn't work on her, she has Lifer.

What does that do?

*hands over card*

Oh, okay. I guess it doesn't work.

That's how quick and easy any rule should be. Not:

Well, I know Taelor has it. Does anyone have Taelor's stat card with them? No? Flips through store copy of book 1(.5).

Two books in, I was fine with carrying both books, an FAQ, and the RM in my Malifaux bag. Four books deep, and no, I don't think I need every model's dosier with me just to play the game, when the rules for an individual model, that break from the default rules, should be printed on the stat card.

I'm not in favor of the symbols. I'm sure they work for Warmahordes, but I see them as yet another barrier to entry into a game. Not only do you have to learn the rules, you have to learn what the hieroglyphics for the game mean.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

Some streamlining would indeed do wonders for the game, no denying it. A model rebalance and strategy and scheme facelift would make it shine. I'm also in the camp of screw Drain Soul.

Aside from sacking my own minions to possibly deny an opponent some vp for a scheme, what are the other issues with drain souls?

In Theoryfaux, I'd say at least non-cuddled Hamelin could have been completely broken with it, should he not care about his models' wp, but aside from that, what other concerns to people have with it?

[DeleteAccount]

Alvairan, you Lifer example is just one more reason I'm all in favor of just ditching the big art pic on the stat cards, and just spelling out rules.

That's how quick and easy any rule should be. Not:

Two books in, I was fine with carrying both books, an FAQ, and the RM in my Malifaux bag. Four books deep, and no, I don't think I need every model's dosier with me just to play the game, when the rules for an individual model, that break from the default rules, should be printed on the stat card.

I'm not in favor of the symbols. I'm sure they work for Warmahordes, but I see them as yet another barrier to entry into a game. Not only do you have to learn the rules, you have to learn what the hieroglyphics for the game mean.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

Aside from sacking my own minions to possibly deny an opponent some vp for a scheme, what are the other issues with drain souls?

In Theoryfaux, I'd say at least non-cuddled Hamelin could have been completely broken with it, should he not care about his models' wp, but aside from that, what other concerns to people have with it?

PRetty much it's all about scheme and strategy abuse. If it was only used as an "oh crap" mechanism to get some stones at a horrible inefficient cost, it wouldn't be a problem, but we all know it doesn't work like that. This forces 2 situations, either you redo all strategies and schemes accounting for the abuse or you just drop the rule that was barely being used if ever outside of those abuse situations. Seems pretty clear to me how to get the most with the least.

[i_was_like_you]

Well, they did have to drop the abuse that Graverobbers could dig up corpses as an all action in a hurry, as Canine Remains abused the heck out of it.

[DeleteAccount]

Yeah, and as a usual resser, except when facing crews with last rites, I don't tend to have too much problem with the summoning game, so I'd say it was a good call.

[Stepfan]

I'm actually against the symbols as well, things annoy me enough in Warmachine/Hordes. Though I do worry at how non-descriptive some of the new cards are, was watching a game that had two new players in it, one of whom had Mei Feng.

Neither of them could figure out what Arcane Reservoir or Lifer meant, and as I only caught the last turn I was unable to help them out. It appears neither term is defined in the little rulebook. They also had no idea how burning tokens worked, but that's just an annoying thing to find(especially as it gets called burning counters on half the things that have them).

[Alviaran]

I'm not in favor of the symbols. I'm sure they work for Warmahordes, but I see them as yet another barrier to entry into a game. Not only do you have to learn the rules, you have to learn what the hieroglyphics for the game mean.

In the MK2 decks to update the cards, they included a reference of all the symbols. And they have not added a single icon (which means that even in the rulebook, they all appear over the course IIRC 2-3 pages tops which are all consecutive). And while new players getting in do not have those icon cards, personally, how many veteran players quickly became used to them? I could easily hand them out to anyone who wants them. It's one of those things that proliferated the community and everyone has at least a few they are probably not using.

I can see some of the icon ideas too. Three teardrops for Pitiful, a teddy bear for Harmless. Make a spiky circle with a number in it for Terrifying.

Artwork is useful for quick recognition of cards, which is just a nice piece of etiquette for your opponent. It also helps for identifying which model is which for multiple wounds (doesn't matter to me since I use dice near models since health can fluctuate so much in this game).

Artwork and wound tracking are actually the only two things I dislike about how PP did the MK2 cards. The full card art of MK1 made recognition easier. It also looked better. And god how I wish they would put the FA of models together on a single card. If my Warwitch Siren is FA2, why can't you just put two damage tracks on one card? Or even better, Brute Thralls. They cost 1 pt and I can have three attached to a single unit (and three units with three each!). Why can't I just get three damage tracks on a single card?

On that idea, if the cards were redone in Malifaux, what about putting all three damage tracks for a Rare 3 model together? For others like Canine Remains, put two per card since that is how they are packaged. It's just a smart design decision and I'd like to see the card using game systems do that.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Alviaran

[Findas]

Ok so this has been a very long discussion and i have only just caught up. I have gotta say i really don't like people discussing what they like so much about warmachine in this tread i read it because i want to know about malifaux.

That being said i believe the 2.0 should in my opinion change little about the game but the rule book and some of the models do need some serious revision we have seen hamlin and other models erratas and this shows they care and that things that are broken will be fixed. wyrd have a truly unenviable task in balancing any new releases as in their game as all models have their own rules.

I was lookin at the new book the other day and i do feel there is a bit of power creep with the latest batch of stuff, when comparing the rail golem to the steemborg they do exactly the same thing but the golem does it all better and is cheaper though all it would need to set them right is to lower the SS of the steamborg and make both the steam clouds the same as the golems. this is an example of the minor things that could really help.

[Alviaran]

Ok so this has been a very long discussion and i have only just caught up. I have gotta say i really don't like people discussing what they like so much about warmachine in this tread i read it because i want to know about malifaux.

It is, however, relevant. Warmachine has had the most high profile edition change in gaming I'd argue because of the way it was handled, the involvement from their players in the Field Test. I feel this also makes it the most successful edition change. How many other games have seen their communities explode after an edition change? I see more and more people upset with GW's edition changes. How about the revolts from long time DnD players over the last couple editions? And in that case, there is nothing saying they cannot find plenty of people wanting to play (hell, look and 3.5 games can still be found). For them, a new edition is just a lack of official support and yet people got very upset over those.

And while the edition change and certain things are certainly not perfect, Wyrd can certainly learn from both what they did right and wrong with that edition change. When someone else does it mostly right, it's worth taking notice.