"Declare Leaders"?

[Hatchethead]

How would you feel if the encounter setup sequence were modified slightly to include a separate "Declare Leaders" step?

1. Choose Encounter Size

2. Choose Factions

3. Choose Encounter Location

4. Choose Deployment Type

5. Determine Strategies

6a. Declare Leaders

6b. Hire Crews

7. Choose Schemes

8. Deploy Crews

During the Declare Leaders step, each player decides which leader (Master or Henchman) they intend to field based on the information at hand and, once both sides have decided and recorded their choice, the chosen leaders are declared. This occurs simultaneously with no option to alter once revealed. Crews are then hired.

I feel this would have a positive impact on the game, allowing players to hire intelligently based on leadership selection in addition to the usual factors (encounter size, factions, terrain, deployment, strategies). It would not remove the "surprise/dismay" aspect of certain leader versus leader match-ups, but it would otherwise allow players to mitigate an uphill battle via informed soulstone investment during the subsequent hiring phase.

How do you think it would impact the game? It's something I hope to test locally. I would never introduce it as a permanent house rule, but I'd like to try it for a few games if only to gather feedback from fellow players.

Thoughts?

[Q'iq'el]

I fail to see how such a change serves anything but to shift the game away from objectives. In the end the focus on objectives in the hiring process is what balances this game. The smallest change to the process can potentially imbalance the game far more than any tweaks and fixes to models' abilities.

IMHO, rather than tweaking current rules, try to enforce them better. In private games it is very hard not to know your opponent master, but if there are several to choose from, make sure you can do it. Play open faction, so that the opponent can pick up any of his masters, even if his collection is spread over different crews.

In tournaments, I'd go one step further and would experiment with having people draw their strategy and hire the crew first and only then be assigned the opponent (for such a setup each round would need to have a fixed encounter, so that people know the terrain features they may find on the table).

[Jonas Albrecht]

Play open faction

I think part of the goal is to get away from the Open Faction style.

[Q'iq'el]

I think part of the goal is to get away from the Open Faction style.

In competitive play perhaps. I'm not sure why we shouldn't use it in the regular games. I have three factions, one master in each. A good selection of minions for every Strategy, but if I declare my faction, the opponent immediately knows my master. Even if I get secondary masters, it still is going to be 50:50. But if I can go with any faction I like, now there are entirely different crews available which one simply cannot tailor his list against. So tailoring the lists for the objectives remains the only choice.

Competitive play is another thing, but hiring the master before you learn your opponent would keep it right. I think if you design procedure properly, you can even let people know the faction they face in proper order (draw players, inform them about opponent's faction, let everyone hire, inform them who their opponent is). Only the table remains unknown in such a system, so at least the Encounter location needs to be predetermined.

[Jonas Albrecht]

In competitive play perhaps.

I misunderstood what you meant by open faction.

[Q'iq'el]

I misunderstood what you meant by open faction.

My bad, I forgot Gaining Ground defines the term quite rigidly. I merely meant choosing the faction should be delayed until the hiring phase in such games.

[Hatchethead]

The choice of leader would still be based largely on the strategy. The leader is the foundation of the crew and ultimately determines the dynamic of the match. The only difference being, players would now have more information upon which to base their hiring decisions.

Do I hire a crew to complete my strategy, combat the enemy leader/crew or (more likely) some degree of both? I don't see that as detrimental. Should a player choose to hire in favor of countering the enemy, ignoring his strategy, that's his risk to take.

In fact, I can see it providing leeway to players unable or unwilling to purchase an entire faction. Suddenly, my knowing you run only Sonnia and Hoffman isn't a big a handicap, and the player with only one leader per faction can hire intelligently to offset the disadvantage.

Also, it could alleviate several perceived imbalances that stem (in part) from blind hiring (maybe, possibly, no promises).

Edited August 24, 2011 by Hatchethead

[ProdigalPunk]

I am not going to lie, I did not really read a single post of this yet.

I think this would give unfair advantages to some masters and constrict others. Karia for example would be fairly constricted in what she could take, while her opponent, lets say the Viks could then go heavy on magic weapons. Seamus vs Gremlins is already one sided enough in my opinion, now if I know I am playing Som'er I can go even more crazy with my targeting WP. It just does not seem like the game is balanced in this way, and there is not enough in a range of models to compensate.

[Q'iq'el]

@Hatchethead

I understand your motivations. I just think the idea is counter-productive. Current rules are designed specifically so that players have *no choice* and must focus on objectives.

Willingly or inadvertently, most players circumvent these restrictions by learning their friends' crews and master choice. This in turn leads to crews tailored to oppose their friends crews - may be the chief reason why some local communities see horribly unbalanced crews, while other communities claim all the factions perform the same in their area.

In other words, I argue the problem is not with the rules, but with their execution. We cannot say rules are inadequate, because the problems are caused by not adhering to them. And your proposition on the top of that, drags the game play exactly towards the place, where it already found itself by the suspected lack of adherence to the rules. Let's first try to play exactly by the words of the rules?

[Hatchethead]

I think this would give unfair advantages to some masters and constrict others. Karia for example would be fairly constricted in what she could take, while her opponent, lets say the Viks could then go heavy on magic weapons. Seamus vs Gremlins is already one sided enough in my opinion, now if I know I am playing Som'er I can go even more crazy with my targeting WP. It just does not seem like the game is balanced in this way, and there is not enough in a range of models to compensate.

This could very well be true. It seems to me that specific leaders benefit from the current blind hire setup moreso than others. Would an entirely different subset of leaders therefore benefit (or suffer) if the setup were altered? Almost certainly. It's a complex system. Even the smallest change would create waves, there's no denying that.

In other words' date=' I argue the problem is not with the rules, but with their execution. We cannot say rules are inadequate, because the problems are caused by not adhering to them. And your proposition on the top of that, drags the game play exactly towards the place, where it already found itself by the suspected lack of adherence to the rules. Let's first try to play exactly by the words of the rules?[/quote']

Dependent on the circumstances, it can be impossible to adhere to the rules. Two of the local Malifaux players in my area run only a single crew and a handful of additional models. I run four crews, all Resurrectionist, alongside every Resser model released to date (plus mercs). It's impossible for me to avoid a little "meta" when making my crew selection. In fact, I often declare which leader I intend to use against them just to level the playing field.

Owning multiple crews, each from a different faction, puts you in exactly the same boat. Moving the declaration of faction until hiring solves your problem somewhat, at least allowing you to choose the faction that best suits the strategy. Still, I'll know your leader prior to hiring and will therefore be able to tailor my crew if I'm of the mind.

The current setup sequence currently favors individuals with multiple crews in the same faction (like me) and punishes everyone else. It could also be taken a step further to say that specific leaders benefit directly from the blind hire, simply by virtue of their play style, which often requires very specific counters in terms of crew composition. Combined, these two factors could be viewed as an imbalance in the system.

That said, I suppose it's impossible to cater to everyone, and a change like this could topple the whole system like a house of cards. It's probably a terrible idea. Just thinking out loud.

I doubt I'm breaking any new ground, here. I'm sure the Wyrd devs had a discussion just like this, once, several years ago ...

[Q'iq'el]

Well, there already has been a change which shows the devs do acknowledge part of what you speak about. Originally you wouldn't even announce the faction, before deploying crews. Since Book 2 that has changed.

I think they didn't go further with the change precisely because they don't wanted to see crews countering specific masters.

[aka_hazard]

I think certain masters would have an advantage with this way of setting up.

For instance Zoraida is very flexible in terms of what type of crew can work with her and it would then be easy to tailor the exact crew to counter the opponent's master.

[Necromorph]

I believe, (and please, Hatchet, feel free to correct me if I guessed wrong, haha) that this thread was created in response to a section of the debate in the "Neverborn Blahblahwhatever" thread.

I'm probably going to screw this all up, but here goes. The neverborn faction, imo, feels very...well...strong in the "Choosing Crews" phase. The point being that, you can generally expect certain things from most factions (with the exception of Outcasts but that's a bit different, and neverborn). Because all of the neverborn masters are very competitive (strong, good, blah blah, don't get hung up on that word to mean that I'm only refering to tournaments here), but have wildly different play styles, you could find yourself with a crew that is ill suited to take on dreamer, but may have been perfect to take on Lilith, for example. The problem is, all of the neverborn masters are strong enough to capitalize on things like that, and this makes it much less likely that an opponent will make due with a crew designed to take on (example) the dreamer but you get stuck playing pandora. That being said, because of the specific strengths of each NB master, if you try to make an all comers list, the models that aren't good counters to whatever master you end up playing against will likely be the only things left on the table in short order.

I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but basically I know if I'm paired against Guild, that i'm going to get shot, so I take models that can close that 12-18" gap quickly and get in their face(or something along those lines). With neverborn there is no "faction standard" like that. Sure many NB crews will use the same minions (twins, stitched, etc), but they use them in very different ways depending on the Master. Neverborn are very master centric and the overall flow of their game is determined by the master with a similar, strong, core group of models...IMO anyways.

I'm not saying that that makes Hatchet's suggestion any more or less valid, but I'm just putting it in perspective as this thread was created in a vacum outside of the original argument, and it doesn't look the same without references or when you step back and take all the other factions into consideration.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Necromorph

[edonil]

I haven't had as much experience as everyone else for playing, especially in 'competitive' play, so, I'm very much a theory person. But, I don't see why this would be a problem. Lets go outside Neverborn to another example of a bad match up: Nicodem and Lady Justice. In a competition, a Guild player will know that they'll either see a summoner who Lady J and an Executioner can shut down, or they'll see a Spirit crew. The Ressurectionist player can pretty safely predict that they'll see Lady J. So, they'll be best served to run Kirai. (if I'm wrong on all of this, that's fine) This means that you'll more than likely see Kirai in competitive play, because she has fewer 'hard' counters outside of non-living. If the goal is to keep people from being stuck into running a few lists, this actually isn't meeting that. However, with Rafkin and Mortimer, Lady J isn't as scary. If you let people know the Master that's coming, the hard counters are a little easier to deal with, and you'll probably see a wider variety of Masters in competitive play.

[Q'iq'el]

I wouldn't say Neverborn are more diverse than Rezzers or Arcanists. Guild perhaps is lacking in diversity, but that's also because there's huge level of inter-operability of minions.

Outcasts are what people call "random" choice in RTS game. They almost seem designed so that you cannot tell what is going to be fielded.

But the point of this system was not to care about other crew. To think about the game in terms of objective grabbers, escorts, tanks and killers needed to keep the opponent away from the objective grabbers or to target their objective grabbers... regardless of the crew they field.

I think, to a degree, the community got too fixated on combos. Sure, there are horrible and terrifying ones out there, but they are all more or less random, unreliable and hard to pull out. Moreover, most of them have either limited impact or can be mitigated by either spreading out or bunching up - two very simple tactical solutions.

So I feel rather than thinking how to counter or entirely stop a combo, one should always think how to realize his objectives in spite of it.

I think that's the mindset the designers are trying to impose on us with the Encounter design. In the end it doesn't matter if the opponent has something which will always kill your model, if he is forced to use that ability on your throw-away escort model. If you push him hard enough and force him to react, he may have the best models, but you'll still have enough time to grab the objectives.

So if we put this thread in context of the other discussion, there's the need to point out the major problem with the discussion itself - it is one sided. It focuses on the less important aspect of the game (crew vs. crew factor) and claims it breaks the more important one (crew vs. objectives)... this skewed perception in turn makes us think the later needs a fix. I'm not convinced it does - let's start recording results of all the tournaments and see if the objective game really is affected by the crew vs. crew aspect of the game.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[edonil]

But the point of this system was not to care about other crew. To think about the game in terms of objective grabbers, escorts, tanks and killers needed to keep the opponent away from the objective grabbers or to target their objective grabbers... regardless of the crew they field.

While this is true, and I completely agree with you that this seems to be the design they're trying to get...but the fact of the matter is that this is looking at the game in a vacuum. Your opponent is trying to accomplish their objective, and stop you getting yours. This is easier for some Masters and their traditional crews than others. Namely, Neverborn. I'm not trying to start another 'Neverborn are broken' argument, but the fact of the matter is that they're quick, giving them a good shot at objective missions and they've got a lot of damage output, meaning they can remove enemy models from the board rapidly. Also, they have very different counters, and very different styles of approaching things. It would be a balancing factor for the other factions to know ahead of time which Master they're going to be up against.

[Q'iq'el]

Edonil, I agree. I've noticed very early in the game, back in Book 1, that if Lilith goes strong against Nicodem, puts him on defensive foot, prevents his objectives, then she can start falling back around turn 4, still grab her objectives and Nicodem won't be fast enough to keep his victory points.

This is the strength and tactical advantage speed provides you with.

On the other hand it is absolutely impossible for her to win any sort of attrition fight against most opponents. If she doesn't put them on defensive footing early enough, she'll be wiped, never mind completing objectives. I feel this is more or less true for most Neverborn masters (with possible exception of Zoraida).

So what do you do about it? Reveal the masters so the attrition can kick-in earlier in the game?

Because my Nicodem opponent adapted by creating tank-centered crews and asserting control over ground. Suddenly he could stop early push for his objectives and then steadily expand his area to grab what he needed... If I couldn't get to mine, it was even better for him. That was a really hard nut to crack and only the appearance of Lilitu in my crew gave me tools to deal with that. I have high hope for Nekima, which I'm finishing right now.

Then perhaps Lilith is more tame than some other Neverborn masters these days.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Hatchethead]

@Necromorph Sorta kinda. I did my best to keep the idea grounded in fundamental game mechanics and faction-neutral experiences, and I have brought it up before ("Nix's Trip to the Masters" thread, for instance). But yeah, the thought did cross my mind that NB have the deepest roster of competitive leaders and hence benefit from blind hiring ...

Honestly though, the "Neverborn Issue" was a relatively minor consideration.

[Q'iq'el]

But yeah, the thought did cross my mind that NB have the deepest roster of competitive leaders and hence benefit from blind hiring ...

Do they, though? If you assume you cannot win if you don't bring exactly the right counter to your opponent's Neverborn master, then it may seem so. But I think the experienced players have contested this notion on every step - you don't need to counter opponent to win. It may help, but even that depends on situation - fixating on opponent can lose you the game just as easily.

That is why I suggest we are over-fixating on the combos and counters to them, rather than on working around them and despite of them.

In the end, a rare master choice, like Som'er or Marcus, can greatly benefit from the fact opponents prepare for something else, when they hear the name of the faction. It is I think reasonable to say that a very flexible and competitive master can address anything he faces, so he doesn't care that much... but at the same time a very specialized or rarely seen master can exploit opponents' focus on his stronger allies from the same faction.

[Necromorph]

Yeah, I think NB do benefit more from it. Each NB master has a completely different way to go about denying you your objectives while maintaining the speed to complete theirs. As I said in my earlier post, it's hard to take an "all comers" list against anyone, especially the neverborn, and if you screw up hiring, the neverborn will take you apart if you get even a bit of a mismatch.

Not that their aren't isolated examples of this for other factions, (mostly the book 2 masters) but in with NB, it's not just 1/4 of the masters that could throw you off if you build your crew to counter the 3/4, it's all 4/4 masters being completely different in their operation and that much harder to predict.

[Akujie]

I like the idea of master first choice. I think the game works fine either way, but that master first choice would let you see more masters in competitive play. Since reveal is at the same time, you can't honestly choose a master to counter another (so the above mentioned example of surprising with Kirai is moot...i.e.) Guild vs ressers. Guild thinks, lady j is prolly best master for the job. ressers think, he will prolly choose lady j, so kirai. still throw off the guild as much as if you had suprised him, but now you each have a chance to react slightly (ex. guild grabs some magic).

Is it necessary, I don't think so, but again... I = new. I think it would just add another layer, and as I read on these forums several time, anytime you add more tough decisions to the game, you have improved it.