Malifaux M2E: How I Would Have Done Things Differently

The open beta for Malifaux v2 has finished, and the final documents are off to the printers.  It should be no surprise to anyone reading that I am happy with the final product and have moved full into M2E.  I have enjoyed being a part of the whole process, and seeing the number of changes that came through from the beginning of the open test through to the end makes me realize and appreciate how much Wyrd listens to their community.  Not everyone got everything they said realized, of course.  It’s impossible for that to happen when often people were saying contradictory things.  But overall, the final product looks good, I believe.

That said, the final product is not without its flaws.  Everything below is my opinion of course, and you are free to agree and disagree with what you like.  But I got to thinking, “It’s easy to complain about the way M2E turned out.  But how would I have done it differently if I was given full control over it?”

I put together a list of a lot of the changes that M2E saw.  Some I liked, some I don’t.  I’m not going to go to the full detail on everything.  Instead I’m going to try to hit a lot of the high-level changes or places that v1 was addressed and see what I would have done differently.

Upgrades

I’m going to go ahead and assume that upgrades have to be in the game.  It feels like Wyrd was pushing strongly for their inclusion.  If I had my way, we would not have upgrades, but given the idea that upgrades MUST be included, what would I have done differently with them?  Honestly, I think I would have done more of them.  There seem to be a very small selection of upgrades, and that leads to seeing the same ones over and over.  I would have liked to see almost double the number of upgrades.  I would have liked to see each subtype have more than one upgrade to boost the crew, but only allow one of them to be taken.  So you could take a Zoraida advanced-deploy forest crew, or a Zoraida super-sneaky forest crew.

I think I would also liked to have seen the Limited upgrades be better defined.  Ideally there would be about three per master, and each one gives a very distinct method for playing that master.  Rasputina could have the super-spell one to focus her in one avenue, the melee one to make her more rounded, or the ice armor one to boost her durability (the examples may not work out right, but the idea is there).  Then there would be the rest of the upgrades that could fill in the cracks and any version of Rasputina could take them.

As they stand, I just think there aren’t enough options to really flesh out the upgrades.

Pre-measuring

It’s no surprise that I would not change anything about it from what we ended with in M2E.  I like pre-measuring.  I always have.  Keep it and move on.

Card Format

Moving to normal sized cards was a great idea.  Not having to laminate all my cards makes me a happy camper.  It was expensive and frustrating.

I also like that the Master cards are all on one card.  I didn’t like it when Warmachine moved to the two-card Warcasters.

Strategy / Schemes

I actually like the new scheme setup.  I like the scheme pools, and I like the volume of schemes available.  I liked having faction-specific and master-specific schemes from v1, but the loss of them is more than outweighed by the gain of the scheme pool.

I have a love/hate with the new strategies.  I dislike that there are so few of them.  And I dislike that they are not asymmetrical.  That said, I think they work well the way that they are.  With the increased focus on schemes, they fill in my asymmetrical fix.

The idea behind strategies has changed a bit too.  They took a page from Gaining Grounds in that they score at every turn, which I like (though as someone mentioned before, it does make tracking it more annoying).  And they allow both players to score at the same time, which I like.  Gaining Grounds has a binary method of scoring – if I get a point, you don’t.  To me that felt too forced and reduced the number of things I had to do during the game – it simplified things too much and removed more of the asymmetrical nature of the game.  By me achieving my strategy, I automatically stop you from achieving yours.  Now, I really have to figure out where my effort comes in.  I have to achieve both my schemes, stop both yours, achieve my strategy, and stop yours.  In order to win a game, I generally have to win three out of those four slots.  In the past, I had to win two out of the three slots: achieve my schemes, stop yours, or achieve my strategy.  The game feels like it forces harder decisions on going for tactical positioning, VPs, or VP denial much more than it did in the past.

One other thing I’ve noticed in the change to allow both players to score on strategies is that games feel much closer than they had in the past.  Good players will generally beat not-so-good players still, but there feels more of a challenge.

Extra AP

I’m going to have to part company with Wyrd at this one as well.  It seems that extra AP have largely been removed from the game, which is a shame, I think.  I don’t think there should have been as much handed out as in v1, but I think there should be more than is in v2.  I think there should honestly be a flat cut-off in stones.  Up through 6 stones, you get no extra AP.  7-9, you get a conditional extra AP (be that a spell as a (0) like Leap, or taking wounds or ditching cards for a move, etc.).  And then at 10+, you should always get an unconditional extra AP.

Terrifying / Horror

Back into Wyrd’s camp, I’m glad to see that Terrifying has changed from what it was.  First, the rule is much easier to remember now.  Every time terrifying would come up, I would have to reference the rules manual to remember specifically what happened.  Was I terrified in my activation or out of it?  How does that differ?  Now it’s streamlined and easier to remember.  It’s weaker than it was before.  And the number of things it impacts has expanded (Horror targets specific types of models based on the model that has it, and it says it clearly).

Ranged Attacks

Ranged attacks are an odd thing.  Their overall strength feels like it dropped a little (from a Guild perspective… fewer auto-crits), but the ranges have increased.  Personally, I do not like snipers that can hit the other deployment zone from their own off the bat.  I would prefer to see them shorter range but with From the Shadows or something like that.

Sonnia and Rasputina saw nice bumps in the ranges of their spells too, which instinctively I dislike.  I liked Malifaux being a melee-centric game where getting in close was the path to victory.

Now I also understand I am a Neverborn player so my desire for melee is certainly biased.

And thinking back to v1, I did not find Sonnia, Perdita or Rasputina to be particular challenges, so seeing their range power increase makes sense.

At the end of the day, I probably would not have adjusted the ranged elements much, and I may have been in error not to do so because I don’t think the adjustments make any of the benefitting masters too powerful.  The spot I would have done things differently is with the snipers.  How?   I think I would have started by giving them all From the Shadows, decreasing their range to the 16” area, allowing them all to ignore cover, and letting their focus be treated as a double-focus, or maybe give them a +1/+1/+2 damage as well when they focus.

Spells as duels

This was a good idea.  Having different duel rules for spells and other attacks was unnecessary.  There are some complaints about spells still having TNs that must be met, and the wonky interaction between the spell cheating when you’re not meeting the spell’s TN, but I can’t figure out how that’s anything other than an advantage to the person resisting the spell.  If I spend a card when you’re not meeting the TN yet, and you decide not to cheat to meet the TN, guess what… I stopped your spell.  Isn’t that what I was trying to do anyway?  If I don’t really care if your spell goes off, I won’t spend the card to try to stop it.  Same with other attacks.

Number of turns

Knowing then what I know now, I would have put this change in straight away.  I never would have thought to do so – six turns felt like something that would never really be changed – but the fact that they did completely changed the game for the better for me.  No longer am I trying to kill all your models and then get my objectives.  If I try that now, I run out of time.  I have to focus on everything all game, which brings in the tough choices I mentioned earlier of jockeying for position versus getting VPs now.

Charges

With changes to the extra AP as shown above, I would leave Charges the way they were.  I don’t like the two attacks on a charge – it weakens a lot of the positioning elements of Malifaux.  If I have a sword that pushes you away, it’s no longer as useful as you can still just charge back in and get two attacks.

Soulstones

This is another of those things like the number of turns that I would never have thought to do, but now that it’s done, I never want to go back.  The number of times a game has come down to me and my opponent sending our masters at each other, both having the cheat, and then it just comes down to who flips higher on the stone.  And like that… Lilith dies to the Vicks because two soulstones flipped low for her, even though she should have the advantage on defense over them.

The counter-argument is that now the game comes down to who has the higher cheat or the higher stats.  And I agree – it largely does in those situations.  But if I don’t have the cheat, I won’t send my model into the fray.  I’ll protect it instead.  If I have a Ml4, I won’t go after your Df7 even if I have an 11 in my hand.  It’s just poor planning.

Additive soulstones used to be able to mask bad tactics.  I flipped better on my soulstone than you did, so my questionable move worked.  No longer.  Now you have to plan things better and not just hope for a lucky flip.

Effects

Standardizing them as Conditions is a fantastic change.  Can’t really argue with that.

Model updating

This is mostly a love.  I initially hated how few abilities there were on models, though once I started playing them I found that I didn’t really miss much, and the things I did miss could be bought back in upgrades from the extra stones a game provided.  I think the game needed to have a lot of its extra rules pulled out.

I don’t understand the whole idea of “the soul of the model is gone”.  I have yet to find a model that, when its v1 was boiled down, did not virtually match the v2 when boiled down.  In some cases, I feel like the new version of the model (Lilith, Seamus) matches closer to what the fluff portrays the character as.

A lot of similar abilities got condensed into a single rule type, which also helps with not having to remember the minor differences between the rules.  Another plus.

Damage / Wounds

Eliminating the extra step of moving damage to wounds so that Object and Armor, and various triggers, don’t get confusing was another good move.  It was an extra step that got added in at some point because of some wonky rules interactions.  Better to have it all streamlined.

Game Size

The soulstone size of the game has increased, but I haven’t been playing with many more models.  That game says it’s based around 41-50 stones or so.  Personally, I prefer playing in the 41-45 stone range, but I liked it back at 30 stones most before.  It feels pretty similar.

With the added upgrades and increased cost of most models, I think increasing the stone size is a good move.  It doesn’t feel like Warmachine when they increased the game size going to Mk2 – the game still feels the same size.

A lot of people have been talking about how the game now encourages swarm-type armies.  The higher soulstone cost, increased focus on interacts, and decreased AP on higher stone models means that more AP are more useful.  I haven’t found that to be the case necessarily.  Starting with 10 models is all fine and good, except that I can generally kill off one or two of them a turn with part of my heavier crew, while getting objectives with my other grabbers.

Most models will have about 10 AP a game at most.  Masters will have about 15.  Looking at it from a pure numbers standpoint is going to give a false image of the game, I think.  If you have 10 models, you’ll have about 105 AP in that game, right?  If I have only 6, I end up with 65.  That means I’m going to lose, right?  Well, not necessarily.  Some of your models may have only 4 AP used before they’re dead, and they’ll be dying quicker.  And at the end of the day, most schemes will only need 3-4 AP spent on interacts at most.  There’s not that high a percent of your AP whether it’s 65 or 105 AP max in your crew.

I may eat my words in the long run, but I don’t see any more need for swarms now than I did in v1.

Anywho, I’ve said more than I intended.  If you’re still reading, congratulations.  I would’ve tuned myself out long ago.  Until next time!