Jump to content

Malifaux 2.0 rumours?


PokiePrawn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OT I didn't hate 4e. in some ways, it was pretty decent. It just wasn't D&D. it had lost all flavor of the game it was supposed to be a new edition of, and this was compounded with constant additions that weren't very good, a complete lack of support unless you paid their yearly fee, and constant mismanagement of the IP, the rule set, and just about anything else they got their hands on.

Is it this much arguing over somthing that's pure speculation and somthing we have no control over and probably not going to happen, really worth it?

You have something better to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT I didn't hate 4e. in some ways, it was pretty decent. It just wasn't D&D. it had lost all flavor of the game it was supposed to be a new edition of, and this was compounded with constant additions that weren't very good, a complete lack of support unless you paid their yearly fee, and constant mismanagement of the IP, the rule set, and just about anything else they got their hands on.

I perfer 4th ed from a RP perspective

That and playing a healer in 3.5 is dull as hell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, in some ways, 4e was much better. I happen to think that divorcing healing ability from other abilities in 3.x would have been better than what they did, but it did make the cleric a lot more interesting to play.

Honestly, if RP is your goal, none of the D&Ds are really great, as all editions I've played(AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder, 4e) are all much too focused on fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is one of the big things I think people are missing. Do you not trust Wyrd to do it right? Like I said, Book 4 gives me hope for a 2.0, that it will be an improvement on the game and rules. They've learned a lot. I learned, again from Warmachine, that when a company has a history of doing things more or less well, give them the benefit of the doubt until you see the final result. In Warmachine, I've seen (in order) these things listed as going to DESTROY THE GAME FOREVER until they got released: epic warcaster/character jacks, cavalry, dragoons, theme forces (ha!), battle engines, colossals and now, upcoming, the new faction. None have ruined the game yet. Did Ten Thunders and the dragoon Master ruin Malifaux? Nope. Did Avatars ruin Malifaux? Nope. One can argue they missed the point, but they did not ruin the game (and I do feel the game is better for the Avatars we got if only because some Masters I think became more common where they had been kind of discarded before).

It's been years since Book 2 and its brokenness which was closer to ruining the game. They've learned. I expect that if they did adopt symbols and redesign the cards, they'd be much better designed overall and would enhance the game. I trust Wyrd's design to not screw it up.

This is a great point, and Wyrd has done a lot right over the past 4 years to earn our trust. As an exercise, what types of things would be on a list of things that if they happened in a V2 then they would ruin the game? What are the things you think Wyrd should watch out for if they were to do a V2?

Edited by nix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great point, and Wyrd has done a lot right over the past 4 years to earn our trust. As an exercise, what types of things would be on a list of things that if they happened in a V2 then they would ruin the game? What are the things you think Wyrd should watch out for if they were to do a V2?

The biggest thing Wyrd should pay attention to, IMO, is wording. If for nothing more than to help cut down on confusion for players new and old. I would love it if Wyrd could straighten things out a bit and keep things more level in the verbiage department. I feel that it would be easier for them to make changes to models overall without too many catches in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my point of view, i am fairly certain that all my fears from an impending V2 can all be chalked up to the fear of the unknown. And i think that would hold true to a lot of others out there. Wyrd have shown us that they know what they are doing, and when they mess up, they do work to fix the problems. Sure, some of the errata took a little time, but i think we all would have been just as worried if they cuddled Hamlin and the Dreamer into oblivion just weeks after their release. That would show that they didn't want to fix the issue but simply wanted to get us to stop complaining. So i like that they restrained themselves and waited to see what the real issues were then moved forward. and as many of you have said, they have clearly learned a lot. Book 4 is quite impressive, both in concept, balance, and execution.

My only real fear with a Malifaux 2 is the idea of growing the game size. I do enjoy that it's a skirmish game, and i like the tough calls that go into making a 25 or 35 ss game, when you have to leave something out. It's just as fun to build the list as it is to play it. But i don't think Wyrd would go that route. They haven't really shown any desire to have us playing 80 ss games. So then i am back to my simple idea that i am simply fearful of the unknown. I can pick any number of different things that would cause concern, but then i could just as easily talk myself right back out of it because i trust wyrd as a company.

I am looking forward to the next book, regardless of what happens between now and the release. and i am going to fully enjoy the game until then. It's kinda like dying. We can sit here and stew about what happens afterwards, or we can get on with living and deal with all THAT when it gets here. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want raisins or coconut in maliaux 2.0 really hate both and am allergic to one of them.

So no coconut raisin pie? You know pi makes everything better (and easier to calculate the size of my slice of pie).

I really don't want squirrels. Squirrels scare me and I have discovered the secret (they are really biblical daemons with furry tails).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My this thread has been busy since yesterday night.

What is it about the icons that people hate so much? I've never quite understood the absolute vitriol they draw, so please enlighten me.

My biggest gripe about the icons are that they dont explain the abilities any better than just writing things out on the cards. I feel it also contrinutes to power creep since there is all that space on the cards that just begs to be filled with "neat stuff".

I'm going to have to disagree with that. Having an icon next to your willpower to say you are Immune to Influence or Stubborn or next to a weapon denoting it's magical or ignores armour or similar is both of those things. It puts all the relevant information together in one spot, rather than having it listed several different places. Sure, most of us can remember all of these things with a bit of practice, but there is nothing wrong with having the information right there at a glance. And yes, it means I have to learn what the icons mean, but I also have to learn what magical, or ITP, etc. means so it's really no different.

Why not just write out the descriptions and forgo the icons all together.

Look at the Privateer Press Game Monsterpocalypse or the Wizkids Game Heroclix. They are almost completely icons (or at least color coded) and both games while great really are a pain in the butt to learn.

The biggest thing Wyrd should pay attention to, IMO, is wording. If for nothing more than to help cut down on confusion for players new and old. I would love it if Wyrd could straighten things out a bit and keep things more level in the verbiage department. I feel that it would be easier for them to make changes to models overall without too many catches in the process.

Definately agree with this however it is something that is far easier said than done. English is a very difficult language to convey any thing in. Sublty, regional dialects, common parlance and understanding of sentence structure being some of the main obstacles that have to be overcome.

Wyrd isn't the only offender here either, all the game systems I have played have this problem as well. Even writing in "legalease" wouldn't really solve the problem as most people wouldn't understand it any better either. It would also needlessly add bulk to the books. I do like how Privateer Press attacked this by just including a brief model specific FAQ for each entry.

My only real fear with a Malifaux 2 is the idea of growing the game size. I do enjoy that it's a skirmish game, and i like the tough calls that go into making a 25 or 35 ss game, when you have to leave something out. It's just as fun to build the list as it is to play it. But i don't think Wyrd would go that route. They haven't really shown any desire to have us playing 80 ss games.

This is a fear that I have as well. Malifaux really shines as a Skirmish level game and though it probably doesn't generate the revenue that "Army" games do, it attracts more people due to the deceptively low cost of entry (deceptive since the initial investment usually leads to a much higher investment quickly).

Malifaux would need a pretty dramatic re-tooling to be played at higher encounter levels. Model balance aside things like Deck Cycling and Out activation are already huge at 30-35 Soul Stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great point, and Wyrd has done a lot right over the past 4 years to earn our trust. As an exercise, what types of things would be on a list of things that if they happened in a V2 then they would ruin the game? What are the things you think Wyrd should watch out for if they were to do a V2?

The big things I feel are needed for the game:

-Fix the rules. This means things like Attack and attack need special language unique to both so that understanding the interactions is easier. Personally, the exact way that a falling back works once it occurs and how one rallies, etc. all need to be cleaned up. It always seems overly confusing (which is funny since Morale is such a small part of the book but has a lot of effect on the game!)

-The rules need to be easier to reference. The index is abysmal. I should be able to look up any common ability. If an ability is not "common" enough to show up in the rulebook, then it should ALWAYS be spelled out on the card. 100% of the time, no exceptions. As a related bit to this, your references should be in as few places in the book as possible. As it stands, if I need to check tokens/counters, characteristics, common abilities, common triggers, etc. I am flipping all over the bloody book. When I started the game, I was playing Kirai exclusively. It's a bit annoying when people tell you her crew is really resilient but you don't know why because Spirit is in an out of the way place because it is classified as a Characteristic (which is annoying to reference) rather than an Ability, despite it explicitly contributing to the abilities of the model itself!

Those are the two most important things to me. I think all missteps they could make stem from not taking those two ideas to heart while doing a 2.0. Because I trust them not to make a step backwards with regards to things like balance, I do feel ALL mistakes stem from not keeping those two things in mind.

Some more specific ideas that I'd be looking at if I were a dev:

-Symbols for common abilities. Symbols are not only easy references but lead into...

-Redesign the card. I'll go into this more below, to keep this list clean

-Separate Abilities from Characteristics. Take another note from PP. Characteristics should not dictate anything about how the model works but only how some other abilities interact with it. For instance, Spirit becomes both an ability and Characteristic (or change the name for one for clarity's sake). Spirit the Ability does what it does now. Half damage, move through things, etc. Spirit the Characteristic is used when other models reference the model. Kirai's hiring restrictions, Swirling Spirits, etc.

-Unification of overly similar abilities. This allows you to manipulate how things interact. Crit Strike/Brutal is a perfect example as been noted. Make it Critical Strike [suit]. Then other models can play with either granting Crit Strike in an aura, removing it, being immune on a trigger to the trigger in general, etc. Opens new interactions and options, rather than restricting them as some people believe.

-Strategies/Schemes need to be overhauled. There needs to be fewer abusable ways to stop them. You should not be able to keep me from my Kill Protege because you Sacrificed it to something. If you are keeping me from Kill Protege, it should be because you are keeping them out of the action. The "fluff" would seem to be that I am making sure the dude you are grooming for leadership cannot ever become a leader. You sacrificing him does the EXACT SAME THING. The flavour of the scheme is completely undermined by the mechanics (and I know some resist ideas like unifying similar abilities because they want every last bit of flavour to be left intact). They should all be viable choices to some extent. Instead you see the same 6-8 all the time unless they can fit in a Master/Faction scheme in there that is REALLY good.

-Remove Drain Soul or rework it entirely. Even if Drain Soul is removed, I think Schemes need to be looked at in general. But as it is Drain Soul gives a fair bit of abusability for Schemes and is sadly the ONLY reason it is used. It is rarely used for its intended, flavourful purpose of a Master desperately looking for resources as the confrontation drags on. One idea if you remove its abusive nature is to instead of incurring a flat Wp penalty is that it causes a Wp penalty for Terrifying. Why does Drain Soul make my crew more susceptible to any Wp effect? Doesn't self preservation still factor into it? If instead, you were just kind of shaken, your courage breaking a bit because your leader is obviously not caring for your well being. So, when a big nasty shows up in front of you, you are more likely to just say, "Screw this!" and run away from the fight. But if I wage a psychic assault on you or casting a spell more harmful to you than your crew's purposes? Why are you suddenly more susceptible to that? It makes sense in certain cases, but has a bit of a disconnect in some cases.

On the idea of a card redesign:

-As others noted, a quarter of the card is used for artwork and a Malifaux logo (is it really necessary to remind me I'm playing Malifaux? Take that off there!) The artwork is already on the card...on the same side even! Ditch this big art.

-Take the stat bar and spread it across the card. This is to make it easier to see and reference, as well as to buy us some room.

-Add symbols for common abilities. Part of why is so that you can add them next to relevant stats. Whether you want to put them elsewhere on the card as well, I think putting them next to the stats they impact is great. Scout, Flight, Float, etc. all go next to the Wk/Cg. Ruthless, Stubborn, Lifer, etc. all go next to Wp. This is to help remember you have an ability affecting that stat when it comes into play. I go to attack your Harmless Oiran or whatever and you tell me to take a Wp duel. I look down at my Wp stat to see what I need to reach 12 but then I see Ruthless. "Oh, I'm Ruthless" and we go on by. Basically, if an ability specifically mentions a stat, we seriously look at moving it up here to the stat bar. Others need to be considered, but it is a good rule of thumb as a starting point.

-Put model name an characteristics above the stat bar, as it is now. Keep the model name on the left side of the fold. This maintains the ability to store your cards folded and look through them to find specific cards easily without having to unfold them to see who it is.

-We can readd the small artwork to the bottom left corner. As with the current cards, we can put the faction symbols (btw, 10T faction symbol is very nicely detailed. Let's get the others updated a little to be nicer looking too while we are at it) and cost. And then, in this lower quadrant we can put any symbols not related to a stat. So Spirit, Undead, Slow to Die, etc. all go here.

-The front of card quick reference for spells, triggers, ability names, etc. basically goes untouched. I think it is a great idea as it gives a lot of the basic reminders a player who is familiar with the model needs to never need to flip the card over.

-The back of the card is basically untouched except for the removal of those abilities that have become standard symbols. We keep the Ca quick reference since it is the most relevant stat while you look at the back side. However, we actually do the whole Triggers/Spells/Abilities headers right. If the model doesn't have them, remove them. Put them in the right spot. It is annoying when looking and realizing that what is now reading Weapons or whatever is actually continued Spells from the left side of the card fold.

Now, I certainly hope no one can accuse me of being entirely negative and not giving suggestions.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

To speak specifically to some of the things Omenbringer said:

I didn't play MonPoc really. Lack of people I think. I also think that symbols and color coding are things you need to use correctly. Doing EVERYTHING like I believe all the clicky games (from MageKnight onward) and presumably MonPoc did is annoying. The idea here is to make it easier to reference once you are used to it, not to be a complete barrier. As someone who has done demos a lot for WM, the symbols are easy enough to pick up when used in that capacity.

Also, see my long friggin' post for specifics how I want to use symbols and why symbols are better than writing an ability straight up on the card. And if you think that power creep can result from the lack of used space, Wyrd doesn't seem to have anything against increasing a model's complexity, taking the space on the card as a challenge to fill it up (for a random one with way more than it might need is the Pathfinder who is sitting in front of me. Man that is a lot of text for what seems like a relatively simple model! And as a related bit, let's just play with text sizes more if we have spare space. Make things easier to read!

Cleaning up language is as simple as choosing different words for things like Attack and attack and making it very clear. One misstep of PPs (and pretty much every game ever) is using very, VERY generic words for common actions. The word "attack" should be very, very vague or broad. It should not be a defined rules term. PP did this great with "Advance" as a term meaning any voluntary movement. Full Advance, etc. They used "attack" though and that causes other problems. Look at Two Hand Throws and Skarre's feat Fate Weaver for an example of where you get a weird interaction due to verbage that is not as clear it should be. I feel PP have far fewer such weird cases than most games on the market, but they are not perfect. So it isn't really a need for legalese, but a better definition of words that makes it easier for other rules and abilities to specifically mention it and interact (a great example of this distinction being a pain in Malifaux is Southern Charm on Cassandra).

I don't think Wyrd would push for a bigger game size. Honestly, people make that claim about WM a lot, but you really don't see it happening. 35/50 are the spot where that game is built to be balanced. With only one caster. You get two casters and balance goes straight out the window and PP intends it that way. They don't work to balance two Casters together because that isn't the way the game is intended to be played. If you want to do it, there are rules for it. Have fun. Just don't expect balance. I see Brawls as being the same way in Malifaux. And from everything I hear on forums and podcasts, it doesn't seem like the majority of the community enjoy Brawls, just like the majority don't like things like Unbound in Warmachine. It's there. It's an option. Few play it. Malifaux set them selves up into a little bit of a corner on it though with Henchman, who can function as a second Master essentially anyway. The ability to use Soulstones is so incredibly powerful (it's a personal bugbear of balance, but I won't get into that here) and is a major distinction of a Master vs a Minion in power level. Being able to take a really powerful Minion basically who has that ability is like taking another caster in Warmachine. The Lessers in that game are so far below the power level of a true Caster that they don't have that same kind of impact as a Henchman does. Not saying this is bad, but that it is something to be aware of. I have ideas for Henchmen with this too, but that is probably germane to a different discussion entirely.

Edited by Alviaran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's simplification as in 'dumbing down' the rules and then simplification by bringing the similar abilities into one ability which people could be looking at different ways.

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

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-The rules need to be easier to reference. The index is abysmal. I should be able to look up any common ability. If an ability is not "common" enough to show up in the rulebook, then it should ALWAYS be spelled out on the card. 100% of the time, no exceptions. As a related bit to this, your references should be in as few places in the book as possible. As it stands, if I need to check tokens/counters, characteristics, common abilities, common triggers, etc. I am flipping all over the bloody book. When I started the game, I was playing Kirai exclusively. It's a bit annoying when people tell you her crew is really resilient but you don't know why because Spirit is in an out of the way place because it is classified as a Characteristic (which is annoying to reference) rather than an Ability, despite it explicitly contributing to the abilities of the model itself!

This is a big one for me. I really dispise the Index in the 1.5 book. For example, I am a new player and need to clarify Spirit. I looked in the index and it wasnt there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is simplification that removes complication, and then there is simplification that removes complexity.

Complication is bad. it doesn't improve game depth, just makes things more difficult and confusing. removing it wherever possible is and should be a major design goal.

Complexity is when interactions and rules have depth. something can be very simple and very complex(i.e. go, Chess). this is good, and it's what makes things interesting.

If they simplify things like attack vs Attack, that's the good kind of simplification, because it removes unnecessary complication. if they simplify cover, then that is probably the bad kind of simplification.

a better index/organized rulebook would be great, but even if you just expanded the common triggers/abilities lists in the back of the small rules manual to include characteristics, counters, etc with an index link to more expansive definitions/rules, it would help.

Whatever you do, don't reduce the characters and world story-wise. that would be a dealbreaker by itself.

I am against the use of symbols as replacements for common abilities. this should probably be clear by now.:Combat_Puppet:

They need to make sure that some of the weaker masters and models get some bumps-there are several overcosted models, a few undercosted models, and there are masters that have few good matchups. I'd like to see every master have a favorable matchup in every faction, at least--i.e Ramos for instance, should have an advantage over one master in each faction.

I get how difficult that will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want raisins or coconut in maliaux 2.0 really hate both and am allergic to one of them.

So... If I KILL someone at the Cake match, do I AUTO-WIN?

Regarding Symbols... What I LIKE about not having the text on the cards is that changes can be universally made in one other place and the cards simply stay "up to date". (Mind you, I am now equating symbols not only with an icon, but more importantly with not having the description of the ability on the card. In terms of simply having a symbol vs. having a NAME... I do not care and think a name works ok in how cards have been laid out to this point)

What I DISLIKE about not having text on the cards is that until I know the symbols, I need a seperate reference to remind me of what they mean.

To me, its simply a question of which of those is a larger problem, or conversely, which helps me more.

I answer the question for myself like this. I have been playing for more than two years. Therefore, I believe that I am capable of knowing what the symbols mean after that long an exposure, so would rather have it more streamlined and easy to errata abilities as necessary.

I could understand where it would be hard for people that seldom play or are very knew though.

Edited by Gruesome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Mind you, I am now equating symbols not only with an icon, but more importantly with not having the description of the ability on the card. In terms of simply having a symbol vs. having a NAME... I do not care and think a name works ok in how cards have been laid out to this point)....

I could understand where it would be hard for people that seldom play or are very knew though.

I could agree with this(using names rather than symbols or detailed descriptions). Part of the problem is I rarely play the same models more than 2 or 3 times in a row, which is about a month of playing for me. Learning a new model with a little picture there for the ability would just give me headaches.

part of it is that it's hard to find a symbol in a list. words can be alphabetized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like more than a few complexities could be reduced with an app that indexed abilities.

Some time ago many of my character cards were lost. I can't find replacements to buy. Virtual cards would be another desired addition for me.

have you tried the malifaux wyrd store? they have most of the cards for sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information