Gaining Grounds 2018

[trikk]

1 minute ago, Hot4Perdita said:

That's the whole idea, since Malifaux is not very balanced, and has powerful crews and weak crews, it would allow a weak crew a chance to win against a powerful crew. Hence, it would add balance.

I have no idea why you said its not balanced. I mean no game is balanced but I think its way more balance than most games I`ve played. Randomness isn`t balance. Its randomness. If counting to (max) 60 takes you 7 mins then I don`t know what to say. I played Ours and it took us around 2 mins total. 

Yes, no more available Claim Jump. And the reasons are exactly the ones you mentioned. If you have an always scheme you are more likely to have the same/similar crew for each game. If the game makes you consider more schemes schemes from the pool then its an improvement.

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, Hot4Perdita said:

And it still would be. You'd still have to accomplish the strat to get to flip the card for VP. 

Adding an element like this would help balance the game, especially when playing a mediocre crew against a solid, powerful crew. I play another game that has a similar concept as this, except it uses dice instead of cards. Many VP are determined by rolling D3. I have played against powerful armies that nearly totally routed my army, but I was still in the game at the end due to scoring VP with concepts such as the random dice roll and random objectives (like schemes). 

In my opinion, adding an element like this would warp the game in different ways. Strategy denial becomes king, because you can't afford to risk them getting better flips than you. Its not adding balance, its adding randomness which is not the same thing. 

I'm not a big fan of the idea of those "easier" schemes.

Kill model "x" for" x"vp sort of exists already in things like Assassinate, eliminate the leadership, murder protegee, vendetta, but addign a little difference, such as doing it in a certain time frame, or killing them with a set model.  I personally prefer that extra level of detail.

3 minutes ago, Hot4Perdita said:

And no more always available Claim Jump? That was one you could always count on going into a game. Knowing claim Jump was always available, I could build a crew to be able to accomplish it every time, leaving me only two other strat/scheme to worry about come gametime. 

That's one of the big reason that the new GG doesn't just have 1 always scheme.  One of the concepts of the game is you build different crews for each game. Not just build 1 crew and make it work regardless of what you are trying to do. This might make the game as a whole more complicated to play, but I find it also makes crew selection a skill of the game, rather than just copy the same list every one uses. (This isn't always the case, I'm hoping 2018 does this more than 2017 did)

It also allows creation of specialised models that you only want occasionally, because you have a much better idea each game if you are going to want them. (For example, Nino with his spotter ability. Some times it is really good, other games it is of no use. You decide when you know what game you are playing if you want Nino or not. )

 

And Overall I find Malifaux is quite balanced. I honestly find the biggest difference is player skill, not player crew. And Crew building is a skill. You can build a weak crew, but that's your fault. I personally believe all masters are capable of winning against all other masters if the player is a more skillful one. In some cases it is easier to use some masters, or they might have steeper learning curves, but a skilled player picking a crew of models they understand to achieve the mission can win regardless of the master you pick. 

 

But This is a game. You are supposed to do it for enjoyment, so if you and your opponent would rather use objective rules from another game then go ahead and do so. 

[Jinn]

Someone in my local group realised that in many pools of GG2018 your only way of scoring VP is to interact directly with the enemy crew, and in these pools you have no strong incentive to leave your deployment zone. This has led to them building crews designed entirely to use lures to pull an enemy model into their deployment zone and score off of them. In earlier pools there was always a scheme your opponent could take that focused on the board and you would have to prevent. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is certainly a different way to play.

Has anyone else run into this kind of strategy?

[trikk]

9 minutes ago, Jinn said:

Someone in my local group realised that in many pools of GG2018 your only way of scoring VP is to interact directly with the enemy crew, and in these pools you have no strong incentive to leave your deployment zone. This has led to them building crews designed entirely to use lures to pull an enemy model into their deployment zone and score off of them. In earlier pools there was always a scheme your opponent could take that focused on the board and you would have to prevent. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is certainly a different way to play.

Has anyone else run into this kind of strategy?

TBH that was always kind of a tactic because 18" Lures are stupid. I mean GG17 Headhunter. Lure 4x, Kill, pickup head. 

 

The only counterplay to enemies having lures is going all in most of the time.

[Pikciwok]

8 hours ago, trikk said:

Lure 4x, Kill, pickup head

That's, like, 8 AP-worth of actions, assuming you win all 6 opposed duels (and the opponent doesn't use LOS-blocking terrain to his/her advantage). If one spend (at least) 4 activations of his/her models AND high cards to gain one VP, I think s/he deserves that one VP.

Don't be frustrated just because there's a strong mechanic in the game you don't have access to (which you do  ) and don't have a hard counter to it (which you do  ). There's a lot of things that make me tremble each time I play against you or other Guild player. I don't claim sternly they're stupid - better players learned how to play against it, so given time I'll learn that, too (hopefully).

Take some cheese with your whine and relax

[trikk]

33 minutes ago, Pikciwok said:

That's, like, 8 AP-worth of actions, assuming you win all 6 opposed duels (and the opponent doesn't use LOS-blocking terrain to his/her advantage). If one spend (at least) 4 activations of his/her models AND high cards to gain one VP, I think s/he deserves that one VP.

Don't be frustrated just because there's a strong mechanic in the game you don't have access to (which you do  ) and don't have a hard counter to it (which you do  ). There's a lot of things that make me tremble each time I play against you or other Guild player. I don't claim sternly they're stupid - better players learned how to play against it, so given time I'll learn that, too (hopefully).

Take some cheese with your whine and relax

I'm not saying it to any faction personally. I know a lot of factions have access to it and some have counterplay available. I'm also not saying that there shouldn't be any Lure or no compensation for a debuff to it but 18" with no projectile with high ca (6-7) usually means that high cards aren't really necessary and its pretty risky cheating when your down by 1 in the initial duel. If you want to Lure the enemy you will.

[Pikciwok]

True, it may be risky to cheat that lures. It's also risky to cheat against attacks with high Attack stat and high  minimal damage (and that's the sort of attacks that would fall upon poor, four times lured fellow). Maybe that's a bad play of mine but I would cheat against at least some of that 6 attack actions to force the opponent to deplete his resources. Just giving up that 1 VP is not in my nature.

[Kadeton]

13 hours ago, Hot4Perdita said:

That's the whole idea, since Malifaux is not very balanced, and has powerful crews and weak crews, it would allow a weak crew a chance to win against a powerful crew. Hence, it would add balance.

Unfortunately, this isn't balance. It's the illusion of balance. Really, it's just variance.

Adding random scoring elements could make it possible for a weak or poorly-played crew to win against a strong, well-played one. However, all that's really happening there is that control is being taken away from the players - this has the effect of making victories feel hollow, and defeats feel unfair.

Taken to the extreme, imagine a game of Malifaux where you lay out the board, build and deploy your crew, and shuffle your deck. Then, both players flip a single card, and whoever flips highest immediately wins the game. Does that sound fun and engaging? Everybody has an exactly equal chance of winning, so it must be perfectly "balanced", right?

Obviously nobody would play that game, but I think it demonstrates the basic principle - making the outcome less reliant on player decisions makes the game less satisfying. Ideally, you want your game to do the opposite: a player who consistently makes good decisions (including when building their crew) should have a significantly higher chance of winning than a player who makes mistakes.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Malifaux having "powerful crews and weak crews"? Malifaux just has models and hiring restrictions. The way those models are combined into crews is up to the individual player - you're never forced to take a "weak" crew. I'm not even sure there's such a thing as a weak crew, just a crew that's poorly suited to the task at hand. I mean, you could probably build a crew that was poorly suited to any task, but... why would you?

[Fetid Strumpet]

You were doing well until your last paragraph.

[Kadeton]

51 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

You were doing well until your last paragraph.

Ah, the bittersweet sorrow of having come so close and yet fallen so far. The thought of how near I was to receiving your unqualified validation shall haunt the rest of my days.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Your snark is also a little weak. It’s usually pretty good.

[Pikciwok]

Am I the only one who think that Hot Perdita trolled this topic and right now s/he's munching popcorn, amused?

[daniello_s]

18 hours ago, Jinn said:

Someone in my local group realised that in many pools of GG2018 your only way of scoring VP is to interact directly with the enemy crew, and in these pools you have no strong incentive to leave your deployment zone. This has led to them building crews designed entirely to use lures to pull an enemy model into their deployment zone and score off of them. In earlier pools there was always a scheme your opponent could take that focused on the board and you would have to prevent. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is certainly a different way to play.

Has anyone else run into this kind of strategy?

Lures were always powerful (maybe too powerful) tool. Having an access to drag enemy model without almost any kind of effort (high Ca, loooong range) to kill it or deny VP can be very frustrating for the opponent not to mention it limits his/hers activation and positioning. When I played Levi I stopped using Rotten Belles because I could see how my opponents react when their model was lured into open and then shot dead either by Rusty or by Levi and they virtually couldn't do much about it unless they kept their models hidden away from Belles. Unfortunately by doing this they allowed me to proceed with my schemes and strategy freely and were losing games.

[Hot4Perdita]

6 hours ago, Pikciwok said:

Am I the only one who think that Hot Perdita trolled this topic and right now s/he's munching popcorn, amused?

How is giving my opinion trolling? I am sincere in everything I post. I like this game, but am frustrated at times with the ever increasing complexity and constant errata. 

I feel it's time for Malifaux to undergo an overhaul with a  new edition that simplifies many aspects of the game. In a couple of other games I play, they just recently released new editions. Over time, those games had become extremely complex and began to lose players and interest. They released new editions that simplified the game, and now those games have had a huge resurgence despite their age. I suggest this is where Malifaux should go. 

[Dima_v]

9 minutes ago, Hot4Perdita said:

I suggest this is where Malifaux should go. 

If you're serious, score 1 victory point.

If you're not, score D3 victory points instead.

[Griautis]

43 minutes ago, Dima_v said:

If you're serious, score 1 victory point.

If you're not, score D3 victory points instead.

You must have meant D3-1 victory points instead, for it to be balanced. 

[Ludvig]

Not a fan of randomness where scoring is concerned, that doesn't really help a weak player and just adds annoyance, I want to be able to control my VP. 

The always scheme going away was intended to not let you do the cookie-cutter approach but needing to actually think about all the schemes which I also think is good. It adds variety in lists between games which I think is a very good thing.

Schemes being worded in a complicated way I can get as a critique, it sucks when you mess that up because you read something slightly wrong. Not sure they are much more complicated than they used to be? Well the assassinate substitute is a lot more complicated because so many weird rules made assassinate almost impossible. If we are choosing between some masters breaking the balance completely or a slightly more complicated wording I'll go with the complicated wording every time.

[Nutella]

On 1/24/2018 at 1:37 AM, Hot4Perdita said:

Is it just me, or are these strategies/ schemes getting more complicated? Even in gg 2017, I would have to read the card multiple times and still I would get something wrong. These new ones are even more complicated. I wish they would move in the opposite direction and clean up these strats and schemes up into a more simple format. For example, how about:

-kill model "X"for "X" VP

-get "x" VP for first model killed

- get "x" VP for holding an objective

- get "x" VP for most unenaged models in a  randomly drawn quadrant, etc.

Those are just examples of simpler strats and schemes that would, to me, make the game much more enjoyable.

This game is complicated enough as is. I haven't been playing it much lately due to frustration of the game and also the constant nerfing of every model I buy. I want to get back into playing, but I have a feeling this will just frustrate me more. 

I think you're right that the strategies and schemes are progressively getting more complicated, but that's the direction the game and the community wants to go, at least for competitive play. Based on your grievances, I think you'd really enjoy playing some of the story strategies! They're usually much more focused experiences, affording you far more freedom in your crew selection. I don't think i've ever had a bad experience with them

[Pikciwok]

1 hour ago, aquenaton said:

Respect, please! Everyone has the right to express their opinion!

No one was disrespectful to Hot Perdita. We just refuse to believe s/he being serious.

Let's discuss the 'creeping complexity' issue. I don't think new GG schemes and their wording are a problem here - the document was designed as rules for tournaments, so it should be balanced first, simple second. One can still play schemes and strategies from Core book if he wants.

Personally, I think it's a new models' rules that are a problem. Please do recall that first edition of our game was so complicated (and unbalanced, btw) it was hardly playable. The second installment tried to fix that, with significant success. Of course, there were some very disappointed folks, who got sour about loosing theme (I heard that back in M1E, Lilith was a vampire) or game's identity and they quited, like you did with your Scorne and Warmahordes.

I think now we have to cope with creeping complexity in new models' rules. Look at the 'damage reduction' departament: at first, we've got a nice, elegant Armor +X ability. There were also few attacks that could ignore the ability. Then we've got things that worked almost exactly like Armor +X, but they had different name, specifically designed to counter armor-ingoring skills. Finally, we've got attacks that ignore all armor reduction, including armor, armor-like abilities, and other, less powerful things that got hit by a rebound, like incorporeal. It's like devs started an arms race with themselves. What's next? Damage reduction skills that ignore 'ignore damage reduction' attacks? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Terracotta Warrior has damage prevention ability - a term previously limited for soulstone ablility only.

 

[Kadeton]

21 minutes ago, Pikciwok said:

What's next? Damage reduction skills that ignore 'ignore damage reduction' attacks?

Next? Nope, that's already in the game. Check out Hoffman's new upgrade, which does exactly that.

The "arms race" is a good way to describe that sort of progression, and I do think the ruleset is becoming a bit too complicated as a result, not to mention somewhat inconsistent. Models tend to have abilities based on whatever era of the arms race they were created in, and rarely get re-examined in the context of later escalations. (I would assert that Malifaux is better in that regard than many other games; X-Wing is a good example where the influence of new abilities seems completely out of hand, to my mind.)

[Gnomezilla]

@Pikciwok as Kadeton said...now there’s a kind of universal damage reduction (instead of armor) as well as a universal damage which ignores all reduction (instead of ignoring armor). Maybe universal ‘cannot be reduced’ was a mistake, although after the wordiness of Glowing Saber calling out armor and incorporeal and hard to kill I can see why someone thought ‘cannot be reduced’ was better wording. How were those writers supposed to know that arcane shield style damage reduction would complicate matters later with another key phrase?

[Ludvig]

@Gnomezilla The saber can't ignore those pesky mages and their arcane shield...

[trikk]

11 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

@Gnomezilla The saber can't ignore those pesky mages and their arcane shield...

Thats why you bwing the Quellew

[Hot4Perdita]

As some of you are elaborating on, the game is getting far too complex, more than it needs to be. Some characters abilities and actions are so complex that it is more confusing and frustrating than anything else. 

Like:

"When "x" models are within "x" range, you may take a test with TN "x", and with a tome, you get "x" ability until your next activation if "x" models have already activated this turn, and no enemy models are within "x" range of "x" scheme markers. After resolving, you may push "x" inches." ...........When you do get everything aligned and finally pull off this feat with the 20:1 odds it took to do it, your opponent has a model that negates "x" ability and it was all for nothing.

 

Now, admittedly that's a little sarcastic in nature, but that's how it feels sometimes. I would prefer to see more models like Perdita that are simple and straightforward, instead of all these other models that are way convoluted. After looking through my model stat books, the new models continue to become more and more convoluted. Things were better when it was just Perdita, Lady Justice, Lilith, Seamus, etc. 

Again, I feel a new edition is needed to clean up the models and simplify the strats and schemes. 

[retnab]

But some of us like complexity in rules, having a strong simple base rule-set as a skeleton with a complex and interesting model ability/action system is IMO one of Malifaux's best features