Math Mathonwy

Imagine a Master with zero interaction from the opponent that wins exactly 50% of the time. Have, I dunno, play solitaire with the faith deck with rules that makes the game 50% win or lose. Perfectly balanced and you'd love to play against one time and again? So yeah, fun has quantifiable components to it. One is interaction. Taking away interaction means less fun in 95% of the cases (unless there is too much but that doesn't seem like a problem that is likely to be had in Malifaux in the near future). *citation needed In other words, what do you base these claims on? Did Wyrd say at some point that they intentionally strive to make some of the Masters rock-paper-scissors so that if you happen to pick Gremlins to go against Hamelin you autolose? I somehow doubt that. Also, you fail to justify the idea. Why make that hypothetical design decision (well, to sell more minis, but that sounds a bit tinfoil hat territory)? How does it produce a better game? Finally, why extend it only to some crews and then not make this implicit? Ortegas have no hard counters. Colette has no hard counters. Actually, it seems that most Masters have no hard counters. Kinda blows you theory out of the water, doesn't it? "With reckless abandon?" That kinda takes the meaning out of your statement. Of course doing X with "reckless abandon" leads to bad places! Now, was there someone who suggested doing the balancing with reckless abandond?

You could easily paint the breasts to be a part of the armor as opposed to skin, if you wanted. (Also, I'm mildly amused that on a model with flayed skin hanging exposing the flesh beneath, it's the nipples that are too gross).

You did notice Omenbringer saying "not necessarily all of these", right? So you are honestly of the opinion that implementing any of those suggestions makes Hamelin a third tier Master?

Eh, as a silly simple fix, you could just, say, add to the basic stats of Rasputina until she is competitive. Give her Ca 12 and she starts looking a whole lot less third-tier! OK, not a serious suggestion, naturally, but I refuse to believe that some semblance of balance is impossible to achieve.

I consider myself rather a good player with a huge number of tournament wins under my belt from different game systems. In fact, the older I get, the more I kinda feel that I've won enough and can sorta lay back and enjoy. Still, I occasionally like to bring my A-game and see if I've still got it, you know. But my attitude isn't the same as it would be were playing in some huge poker finals or Superbowl or whatever. Superbowl is professional, minis games are a hobby is what I'm trying to say. It's not as complex but offers basically just as much tactics-wise (though in a different way). Not quite as comboriffic as Malifaux, though there are certainly interesting combos to be had. And it isn't perfectly balanced (no minis game is), just that there are no push-overs among the Officers (Master-equivalents).

I'm not sure that there is an event comparable to super bowl in miniatures gaming. Every tournament I've been to, I've been there to have fun first and foremost with winning a long, long second. More so the older I get. And now I don't mean that playing competetively isn't fun, I mean that thinking of tournaments with a super bowl mentality (with millions of dollars at stake) isn't going to lead anywhere healthy. I also think that every Master should be at least in the same ballpark power-wise. Not every crew, mind, but a well constructed crew that complements the chosen Master should always have a place at tournaments. Helldorado, for example, manages this, so I can't see why it would be impossible for Malifaux.

Again with the "scoring points" style of debate. *yawn* There is no upside to losing a soul stone. There is a definite upside to holding on to the Black Joker. Therefore the analogy doesn't make any sense except as a failed attempt to score yet more points. Holding onto the Black Joker denies you the card you use for the initiative flip. If it's a high card, good, high ini flip is usually a blessing. If it's a low card, no big deal, exchanging the BJ for a low card is usually a bad trade. So yeah, basically only if the card is a moderate card with a good suit that ends up losing the ini flip it is a major detriment and even then it is a price that I'm willing to pay with many crews. As a systems engineer working on my PhD I'm extremely well aware of human risk assessment capabilities and tendencies. No need to lecture me on that account, I assure you. I have been constantly talking about winning more in the long run. That one time that my Seamus died to Black Joker really doesn't matter in that perspective, but feel free to keep tilting at those windmills.

This conversation has taken a pretty silly turn... They differentiate between Warmachine and Hordes. You honestly don't see anything funny in lumping all (some? Who knows?) Reaper minis under a long defunct game line?

Thank you for the report! A very nice read I'm kinda taking away from this that Hamelin might very well still be the best Master but the margin isn't all that huge. Of course the sample is very small and tainted by the fact that you were playing him (in that perhaps you are simply an incredibly good player) but a good data point nonetheless. Thank you again and congrats on the win.

Did you win the tournament? Also, what did you face and how did the games go? No need for an in depth blow by blow, just the general feel.

I feel that Malifaux is a game that gets a lot faster once both players are really truly familiar with the rules (including both crews that are on the field). So yeah, a 90 minute tournament game means that both players should be playing at a fairly brisk pace but should be doable once people know what they're doing.

I would say that TGN favours non-GW gamers rather heavily simply due to the nature of the site. A lot (most?) GW-gamers only play GW games and therefore sites like TGN aren't of much interest to them which skews the results rather dramatically. Also, since it's in English, a lot of French and Spanish gamers probably aren't reading it which in turn affects the numbers when it comes to Infinity, Nemesis and the French games (which tend to be in turmoil right now, so wouldn't rank all that high regardless). Aye, I had noticed the same thing. I kinda supposed that they put all Reaper sales under Dark Haven for some inexplicable reason but since they differentiate between WM and Hordes, it seems really nonsensical and doesn't raise my confidence in the numbers. Are you thinking North America or world wide? As I would be somewhat surprised if what you're saying is true of Europe.

Can someone show me a minis game where minimizing the chance of catastrophe doesn't yield more wins in the long run as opposed to playing recklessly hoping for the silver bullet? As I haven't yet run across it* and I've been looking at games from this POV for a long time. And the other side is saying lolwut haxxorz l33t skillzors will win the day I pwn blck jokerz! Oh, wait, no they are not. OTOH claiming that they are certainly makes it easier to "win points" in the argument so perhaps we should all keep rallying against strawmen. Your comparison to playing a game with one soul stone less than the opponent was extremely silly. In fact, probably the silliest thing yet said in this thread. It's not nearly the same in any way and even the most casual of observations should reveal that fact, which kinda casts everything you say in a bit dubious light, to tell the truth. *as in, it's blindingly obvious in games such as WHFB, Warmaster, Helldorado, Alkemy and Blood Bowl and a bit less obvious in games like Infinity and LotR though I argue that it is still there.

In all the wargames that I've played during the 20 years in the hobby, the one constant thing from game to game is that minimizing the effects of chance tends to make you win more in the long run. Basically all minis games are about stacking the odds in your favour and first minimizing the chances and then the effects of catastrophes. So unless you come up with a more compelling argument than "when drawing a Black Joker, you might have drawn a one instead" coated with some pompousness, I'm not discarding the BJ willy-nilly. Your reasoning is that instead of drawing the Black Joker you might draw a one or your opponent might just draw better. Funnily enough, the same faulty reasoning is in effect when you discard the Black Joker in the hopes of drawing something better for your control hand. You might draw that one there and the situations where a one in hand is better than the BJ in hand are extremely rare. That said, discarding BJ when you know the turn being the last of the make-or-break turns is often a justified move.

This is a very important point. ICv2 is not a very reliable source of information only accounting for the sales numbers in certain stores and only in the states, right?

The easiest Master box to start with is Lady Justice but all the Guild lady Masters are rather beginner friedly, so I suggest going with your gut (meaning aesthetic sensibilities ).

"Super basic intro" is a bit extreme as all that is lacking is diagrams and scenarios, right? It's just that the format makes it hard to use. The sad thing here of course is that it's very easy to make the PDF flat (but not easy enough to be meant to be done, which is why I haven't done so) and I'm almost certain that I could get a pirated version of the full rules manual that would work on mobile devices were I so inclined. In other words, pirates are the ones who get the superior product in this case.

Ah, fair enough, mea culpa. I somehow doubt that flattening can be the deciding factor there but if someone from Wyrd comes and says that that is why the PDF is how it is, then I concede my point and stop mentioning the free PDF when promoing (as currently it, anecdotally, breeds bad blood as opposed to positive PR when these prospective players see it for themselves).

Remember to be careful in reading posts as I never said anything about tadaka's tone. There's this multiquote function that makes it easy to quote several people in a single message, you know . The tone comment was aimed at magicpockets who compared criticizing the PDF to calling someone's child ugly or stupid which is escalating the thing to ludicrousness. And I say that as someone who makes a living writing stuff and then having others mercilessly try to find faults in it. That might be a sad reality, but I'm not convinced that anyone on this thread has suggested such. Or if you'd like to quote someone asking for that, I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong. Huh? That's not a core question at all and is, all in all, a very silly metric. Eh, that's a bit low as it's obvious twisting of words. It was extremely clear that the "without a computer" meant without a desktop computer as in the PDF doesn't work in portable devices. Though this kinda explains your previous comments, it's a really weird take on things. This isn't personal to me and it shouldn't be to you. The word 'people' is plural, not singular. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint all the critics with the same brush and trying to construct some kinda heavy-handed "us vs them"-mentality when it's not needed. I also feel that it's very unconstructive. If you have a response to someone's singular comment, respond to that person as opposed to talking vaguely about "people". You feel that a flattened PDF that works on an iPad is an unrealistic expectation? Honestly, I think you should take a deep breath, not take this discussion as a slight aimed at your person and all in all pay more attention to what people are saying instead of exaggerating it into something and then railing against that. LoboStele misread my post - no one mentioned anything about your tone. I know a fair bit about electronic publishing and yeah, it would be very simple. Flattening the PDF to make it much faster and smaller would take less than a minute. Stripping the background, as it's in its own layer, would also take only a couple of minutes.

The cumbersomeness doesn't seem to serve any purpose that I can think of, though. In other words you agree with the crux of the criticism (and indeed the reason I posted this in the first place) put forward in this thread. Why did you frame that support as if it was some small part as opposed to the whole? Who exactly is this "everyone" you refer to here? Why make sweeping generalizations that aren't true and will only darken the tone? I realize that you're passionate about this (so am I) but there's no need for such hostility. I agree. I also kinda think that everyone else here agrees with this as well. OK, so you actually agree with the criticism that has been voiced in this thread. Makes the tone of your reply even more baffling. Seriously, why not try to mellow the tone of a heated topic instead of escalating with strange comparisons and defenses against stuff that no one has even implied? Defending Wyrd is all good and well (they are awesome as I keep saying) but retaining perspective there is extremely important. A mindless dogpile serves absolutely no purpose.

I agree with you 100%!

Aye, I'm sure that I could do that (working on my PhD in essentially computer science) but my concern here isn't my personal use (loving my Rules Manual) but rather in promoing the game. Since the printing has been disabled, flattening the PDF isn't trivial, so mentioning it in promoing is weird, to say the least.

Where (other than on this thread) has the suggestion of flattening the PDF been made? It's possible that I've missed it, but I hadn't seen it before. I saw the previous train wreck, but thought that a new thread was in order now that the PDF has been out for a while and now that I've used it as a selling point to potential new players (which kinda turned out to not be as I had advertised it). I was looking for other people's experiences and maybe some pointers on where I was going wrong. Thank you! They devolved into accusations of unethicalness and greed and other such silliness. This thread has been entirely polite and constructive and though I naturally do share your wish that it remains so, there was no indication that it wouldn't.

I suppose that the "and others" includes me - I've been trying to be very polite as I honestly think that Wyrd has handled the issue well. It's just that their execution on one part is a bit lacking. I don't see any reason why the PDF can't be flattened. I mean, restricting printing is understandable, but making the PDF too cumbersome to use is silly IMHO and I'm not at all convinced that it was a conscious decision. As for "not going to change" - that's very silly. Wyrd have an absolutely excellent record in listening to customer feedback and acting on it. The latest case being the allowing of printed v2 cards on tournament organizer's say so in tournaments that follow the official rules. People voiced their concerns, Wyrd considered them, and made a ruling that satisfied everyone. Now, if Wyrd says that the PDF is cumbersome on purpose and won't change, then you could say that. But since they haven't said that, I think that you're being extremely counter productive and am baffled by what you're trying achieve.

Not speaking for anathema, but before the starting cost was one book and one starter. Now it's basically one book for the fluff and another one for the rules and then one starter. Now, Wyrd saw that this wasn't what they wanted, so they released the updated rules for free. An excellent solution that I lauded and was very happy to pay for the Rules Manual knowing that newbies could ease up into the game just as efficiently as before. Unfortunately the release was in a file that is cumbersome enough to be unusable to most of us. If they would just flatten the pdf into usability, I at least would be more than happy with how they handled the situation. But right now it feels somehow... bait and switchish. That's too strong a word as I'm 100% sure that Wyrd isn't doing this for some kinda cheap gain and, like I said, I lauded their handling of the situation. Merging the unwieldy errata into a new rulebook and then releasing it free of charge was a great idea but right now it's kinda unfinished and makes honest promoing a bit awkward.