Calmdown

With respect, that's a bit of a rosy and/or blinkered view. Having a couple of juniors posting on the forums a little and passing the odd, year-late ruling, does not equal 'great community interaction'. What it does do, is wonders for PR - because as you can see, a lot of people are satisfied by said interactions, even when the actual effect on the game is incredibly minimal.

You miss the point - it's not about my changes or anybody else's changes, and that list was not made with the expectation that it would *actually happen*. The point is that something needs to happen, and whatever that something is, shouldn't affect players that play for fun or casually because those players have no issues with model abilities regardless of what they are. If they do have opinion on a model's stats and its balancing, then they aren't the fun/casual players they're claiming to be. Can't have it both ways!

I actually think that this attitude is pretty central to the discussion, tbh. The game is not great at a tournament level or at a level where people play competitively (this doesnt just include tournaments; plenty of people play games competitively but never go to a tournament. Every player who posts on a forum asking for tactical advice for example, is taking the game at least somewhat seriously). The problems exist at a fun level, but are less evident (and/or people care less about them). The thing is... because at a fun level they're less evident or relevant, Wyrd could make changes to the game to make the serious players happy (fixing model and rules balance) without having any negative impact on the fun players. So I don't really understand why there is so much resistance to change, when the changes have, at worst, a neutral effect but massively improve the game for others.

I can see where you'd be confused I'd actually already made the decision to quit, but I was signed up to a tournament that I didn't want to miss. Most of the guys there already knew I was planning to quit, too. The reason for the balance post was because it was something I'd wanted to do for a very long time and, as tournaments tend to do, the weekend of gaming gave me a little bit of fire to do it. Although, as I said to Nix/Bill on Skype afterwards, you guys did a great job in that thread of reminding me of everything that I dislike about the game and the community in short order Anyway, the decision to quit never changed. I just wanted to get that spreadsheet out of my system, as much for my own satisfaction as anything. I wasn't even sure I was going to post it, but I figured I might as well since I'd written it

My LGS in Liverpool stocked the shelves with Malifaux just before I moved here 3 months ago, when I was bigging up the game on Facebook and a few of their locals had already found it. This burst of 10 or so players turned into 4 over the course of a couple of months and only one of them turned up to a tournament I ran locally. When I asked why, they told me it was because one guy had picked up Collodi and as they'd played more and more games it had become apparent that their other crews (Sonnia, Perdita, Seamus, Rasputina and Ramos I know were 5 main masters) couldn't win against him. Of the 4 players who remained three of them were playing Collodi, Kirai, and Pandora. They've all now since stopped playing mostly too because of lack of opponents. They decided to play Dystopian Wars instead. People quitting your game to play Dystopian Wars is a pretty massive indictment

Since I posted my Rezzer collection up for sale, I've had a number of people message me and ask me why I'm 'quitting'. I've also had a number of discussions with those people that aren't in the UK that I regularly speak to over Skype/PM/etc about why I'm quitting, and about why other solid Malifauxers such as Magicpockets and Spiku are 'quitting' too so I thought it'd be interesting to wax a little on the topic. First, though, I want to clear something up and get it straight: I love this game. I love the mechanics. I love the flavour. I love the low total cost. I love only having to carry around a few models to play. I met my girlfriend, soulmate, and soon to be mother of my child, at a Malifaux tournament. I owe Malifaux a lot and I've had a great time playing it, and met a lot of awesome people doing so (all the way up to my last tournament, the UK team GT, where I was lucky enough to meet Mike Marshall, Conrad Gonsalves, and John Mickleburgh). That said, there are obviously things that make me want to stop playing. I want to be clear again though; if playing Malifaux was as easy as logging on to my PC at home and having a game, and playing tournaments could be done in my house, I'd like nothing more than to keep doing it. But that's not the case. Tournaments cost money. They take time, in planning and travel. The total cost of ownership of a casual player playing at a gaming club is pretty low; the cost to a tournament player is comparatively pretty high in both money and time (and I run a startup company, so time is at a premium). I think these things could be overcome, also, if the game were better. Now, I dont want to turn this into an argument over which elements of the game are good or bad and how to fix them - we have plenty of threads for that already. The overriding problem is that Wyrd are a company with an identity crisis. They dont know whether their game is meant to be casual or serious. The game is badly written for competition, but they really want to push into the competitive arena and arent willing to make the changes to do so for fear of breaking the immersion and fun factor. The fluff is amazing, but is ruined to a large extent by thematic crews being unplayable on the tabletop. Even the most fun oriented player in the world won't have an enjoyable playing experience running Rasputina, an Ice Golem , Ice Gamin and a Wendigo. It's this last point that I find to be the greatest shame in Malifaux and with this community. Whenever there is talk of balance from an 'elitist' player, the community reacts by shouting that player down, as if making bad models playable would somehow impact the casual and fun scene. Although people say it often, I find it very hard to believe there is a single person in the world who would not rather be playing with a fair chance of winning rather than being forced to lose the theme of his list to not get savagely beaten by his friends. It's really saddening to never see some of the cooler, thematic models in the game on the table. I use Rasputina often as an example of this because she was the first 'awesome looking box set' purchase I ever made, right after I bought Perdita for my original crew, and my Ice Golem and Gamins have sat on a shelf ever since and Rasputina's been forced to run around with constructs and mercenaries rather than her icy friends. I also think another great shame is the lack of Wyrd engaging in reasonable time frames with the needs of the game. As an example, we can take the issue of Stitched and Does not Die. This issue has existed for a very long time. It would have been an easy fix long ago, that would have saved many a ruined play experience, to fix this; but instead we waited an age. There is absolutely no excuse for this - for a start, it shouldn't slip through playtesting in the first place (though anyone in the know knows that Malifaux was not particularly thoroughly playtested and in many cases, models were released with zero playtesting purely for fluff reasons), but moreover, it shouldn't be allowed to continue to ruin the game. Again, things like this are easily fixable. Claiming that 'we had to extensively test this fix before making it' doesn't really wash either; it may do with people who auto-thank any post by a Wyrd employee, but come on guys, you know that you could have made that change - and many others - without the extended wait. Malifaux is in dire need of an overhaul. The sheer number of rules holes, loopholes, negative play experience inducing abilities (sup Drain Souls) and other such nonsense is quite staggering. Rumours of Book 1.5 were that it would be a rules update and an update to the stats of the models in Book 1 to bring them in line with Book 2/3 levels, so the actual release was a massive disappointment. Now we know we're getting Book 4 at Gencon, but after the failure of Book 3 to make a real impact, where is the hope for this - and then when do we have to hope for 2nd edition to come out? And do we have to sacrifice lambs and goats in the hope it'll actually improve the game? That's what it all boils down to for a lot of people, I think; the faith and goodwill have gone. For some, it may not have gone, but it's certainly starting to wane. Wyrd have had a lot of time (and a lot of our money) to make things right. When serving any customer, you have a limited pool of goodwill that slowly empties when you make mistakes. It can be refilled or topped up with awesome things, and Wyrd's pool is frequently topped up by their game having such amazing flavour and fluff. Unfortunately when you start taking the game a *little* more seriously - lets say, serious enough to spend some time on forums - you start to see through the good and into the not so good, and your goodwill pool springs a leak. When you start playing at a competitive level and realise that they have no interest in you, the goodwill pool spill makes BP look innocent. So that's why I'm quitting Malifaux, and that's why I think a lot of people are quitting or taking breaks. The game is inherently flawed, the fun is wearing off and the trust and goodwill are all used up. Were I a student again, or had more free time, I'd undoubtedly continue to play but frankly, I feel like I've had the wool pulled over my eyes for a long time and given Wyrd enough of my blind faith. I'm still going to keep some models, because a lot of my friends play this game, but mostly because they're a hassle to sell. After all, the community is tiny - and it's not growing at any decent rate - but nothing is wrong, all is rosy, and I'm just a troll, right? Lots of Love CD

Not had any offers of interest yet, so collection is still available.

People start talking about threads being locked even if there's nothing wrong, and it often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy (or at least diverts the topic). Best to ignore them.

A very succinct summary of his entire MO

Basically its not because 'oh, something big happened' that makes the Red Joker an issue. It's the sheer magnitude of the event that's an issue. It doesn't matter that the chances are low, because in a competitive or tight game, the Red Joker can and often will be a game ender. For example taking out very large models in one swing that would have ordinarily never died. I'll give you the ultimate reall ife example (which, btw, happened long after I'd been arguing that jokers need fixing but cemented it for me!) Magicpockets and I are playing the final of the UK masters. It's my Dreamer (precuddle) vs Hamelin and the strategy is Claim Jump. Now, against Pockets, I know I have basically no chance of winning this unless I play time very intelligently and then drop Chompy on the Claim marker for a terror bomb, and I don't play for time. So, my only option is therefore to kill Hamelin (this wouldn't be the only option against many Hamelin players, but Pockets doesn't make mistakes with Hamelin so I know this is my one option). I set up the board, and go for the jugular. I start by taking out his Stolen and then drop Chompy on Hamelin. Both of us have a full SS pool so it's going to be very hard, and I know I could lose, but I try it anyway. On one of my attacks, after I've already done some damage, I flip well, he cheats and stones a low number, so I cheat up and stone a high number then cheat in a Severe with a Flay trigger. I'm about to hit him for 8. We both know that if I hit him for a number this big, he's dead. So he stones damage prevention. He flips a Red Joker. My gambit was well set up, I played the turn really well in a quite difficult situation, and I pulled it off - except that a random flip of a card prevented 8 damage. That basically ended the game right there and then. That, for me, is a prime example of why the Red Joker as it stands is too powerful. The ability to completely change a game on the flip of one card, in a way that is completely and totally out of the hands of the player, is not a good mechanic. Luck is fine, every game we play is based on luck, but that level of luck isn't really desirable.

I think stopping was definitely the best choice right now. Too much headspace being spent on thinking about thinks that will never happen. MTG hoooo

Perdita was my next 'project' choice to play and show how good she was - Jo was going to paint me one in animal print cos she has one in a box But :effort:

Added Crooligans and Rafkin to list.

Yep. This change basically stops her Transpositioning through walls, which is hellishly broken. She still retains the ability to charge, strike, etc. That in itself is amazing but casting Transposition too was a bit ott. Also Df 9 is stil ridiculous, but again, I was aiming to not 'completely cuddle' and rather 'tone down' the crazy stuff.

I dont understand how people can be against something that is designed to make the game better for everyone. Believe me, its not the top end competitive players that suffer from stupid tricks and unbalanced rules. Its the guys who want to play the game with the masters they enjoy but still have a chance of winning that suffer. Just because a competitive player writes something it's essentially written off as being something that will only benefit competitive players? This community is hilariously blinkered.

Hi All This collection is a nigh-complete collection of Resurrectionist models, with many multiples to cover all of your summoning needs! It's not quite the entire faction, but it is pretty much everything (only Copycat Killer missing from book 1/2) and certainly everything that's good This collection is not available for sale individually at this time, I'd prefer to sell it as a whole lot. I am not going to fix a price, I will entertain any reasonable offers. Delivery for this item can be at the buyer's choosing; it almost fits in a single large KR case so it can be shipped in that with the stat cards following in a box. It can be hand delivered to reasonable locations in the UK depending on the offer and also the distance. Please PM me with any shipping/delivery questions. All models are assembled and unpainted unless otherwise noted. The models that are painted have been commission painted to a pro standard by a professional painter in the UK. Converted models have been converted by a very talented green stuff sculptor. Pictures can be supplied if there is interest. All models come with v2 stat cards. The Collection Masters Dr Douglas McMourning Nicodem, The Undertaker (original model converted to be holding a lantern instead of a Vulture) Nicodem, The Undertaker (original model, missing vulture head in blister, hence the second Nicodem!) Seamus, The Mad Hatter Molly Squidpiddge Kirai Ankoku & Ikiryo (professionally painted) Avatars Seamus, Avatar of Dread McMourning, Avatar of Athanasia (Simulacrum 29) Kirai, Avatar of Vengeance Totems 2x Grave Spirit 2x Vulture Necrotic Machine Zombie Chihuahua Lost Love (professionally painted) Unique Minions Madame Sybelle Miss Pack (Nurse) Mortimer, the Gravedigger Sebastian, Morgue Assistant Bete Noire Datsue-Ba Dead Rider Rafkin Minions Rogue Necromancy 3x Flesh Construct (one original model, one new model, one converted original model with gas mask and Hellboy style fist) 6x Punk Zombie (3 unpainted, 3 professionally painted) 3x Rotten Belle 12x Mindless Zombie (3 converted with green stuff sculpting and sculpted bases) 8x Canine Remains 3x Crooked Man 4x Night Terror (professionally painted) 4x Gaki (professionally painted) 4x Onryo (professionally painted) 5x Seishin (professionally painted) 2x Shikome (professionally painted) 2x The Hanged (professionally painted) 3x Crooligan For reference when making offers, the total price for all of these models new is £417.35 in the UK, plus around £100 of commission painting work on the Kirai crew (which was discounted too!) As I mentioned above, I'll entertain any reasonable offers for this collections and we can talk about delivery. Just shoot me a PM. Regards

This is not really a point about Nicodem, but a point about metas and competitive players. I cannot fathom, in any way, a meta where Nicodem could be consistently competitive. It simply does not exist within this game, because he does not have the numbers nor the abilities nor the model selections to be constantly competitive. If he is constantly competitive, it means that his meta is at a low level - either people play lower level masters a lot, or Zephir outskills his opponents to make up for the lack of competitiveness of the model. Either way, the fact that you point at it as an example of why Nicodem is fine, worries me. As the 'main' playtester for Malifaux, the fact that you do not grasp that his meta/playskill making the model work is not the same as the model itself being fine is worrying too.

This pretty much applies to the whole of Malifaux. And it applies the other way round, too; people think bad masters are fine because the only people they play against with those masters are weaker players than them. And the circle perpetuates.

I'm really really sorry, but how can you say that with a straight face? Nicodem is balanced against all of the other masters in the game? Are we, as a community, really this blind and have so much raw faith in 'someone will make it work' to not be able to see that a broken model is broken? There are no hidden combos, no undiscovered depths. He does not work. Saying that he does because some guys in some (likely uncompetitive) metas made him work does not make it so. Hell, I almost won a tournament with him and ended up coming second because of a horrible game of flips out of which I managed a draw; that doesn't mean he has any less issues. Luck and circumstance aren't a substitute for balance! Also sorry Nilus, must be getting you confused with somebody else

Now now. We know that you cannot apply numerical values to these abilities and we know that if you apply them in a total vacuum many things make no sense. But you also understand the term 'in a vacuum' and what it means. The top and bottom of it is: it is totally possible to balance models independent of meta. Meta can alter the value of given model, but the initial 'value' is set by the stats itself. There is no meta in which a Malifaux Child would be a better totem choice than a primordial magic

Meta does not really make a difference to the true power level of a model in a vacuum. Any good player can read a model and see that, meta independent, it is good/bad/average/whatever. Is there a meta where Hoarcat Pride spam is a good tactic? Sure. Does that mean that the model is fine? No way! To use another example; Nilus once told me he'd beat my pre-cuddle Dreamer with Nicodem. Is Nicodem going to be better if I'm in Chicago? No, he's going to be exactly the same as he is in the UK. Winning with something in your meta does not make it viable when taking a balanced view. Edit: Or what Ravenborne said

Because releasing new models does not make old, bad models suddenly worth taking. Additionally, releasing models that 'shore up weaknesses' in existing crews is generally bad design. You want to release models that add something new or interesting; if something has a pre-existing issue, you should fix that issue directly, not just release something shinier. That's how power creep happens.

I think it's a bit of a push to say that these changes are based on a 'local meta' when my 'local meta' is the UK tournament scene and multiple disparate local club scenes. There are many comments that people do make which are 'meta biased' (such as the aforementioned Perdita being overpowered in metas with a lot of new players) but given the breadth of the UK tournament scene I dont feel that this is the case here. Also, I think it's unfair to say that this list is biased. It's pretty much across the board buffs to underused & underpowered models and only a few tweaks down to models with aberrant or broken mechanisms. Gremlins are kind of a different subject; as I said earlier when talking to Dom they really need a total redesign more than a few tweaks because their design is inherently flawed and that flawed foundation has been built on top of, which is causing compounding issues.

I think it was a design decision with Outcasts, for flavour, so it shouldnt be changed. Viks get an extra model and so are viable at 0 cache. Leve has a fantastic ability set and unkillableness to compensate for his lack of SS. Somer has an insane amount of cards to make up for his lack of SS. I think they all balance out the lack of SS with their other abilities. Bayou Gremlins are an aberration. A 2ss, fast, significant model, with multiple utility abilities and stats that would not be out of place on a 4 SS model. Sure they have some minor downsides, but as a general rule in game theory, a frontloaded model is better than a balanced one. I think Gremlins need a more rounded set of models, and hopefully they'll get that in future releases (less Lennies, more good models), but from a fair standpoint the abilities of a Bayou Gremlin are simply insane. My suggestions for Gremlins are trying to stick within my scope of 'minor changes only' and not total reworks, but in this case, I think a complete rework is needed. The problem with that is you then have to rework Ophelia, and all of the other gremlin models, because they're a synergy list. In lieu of that, I think that my suggested changes are fair. Alternatively, it would not be unfair to completely remove Reckless from them and leave them as significant. An unlimited selection, significant 2ss model really shouldn't have access to 3ap. In fact it shouldn't have access to either of those things! Again, the model has a serious design issue. Its stats, particularly its defensive ones, are high for a 4 point model; and then on top of that, it has an insane amount of utility and combat abilities, and it's significant. Look at the healing abilities scattered throughout the game; most of them heal one target, most of them require a cast, and most of them require a suit (usually a ram). Healing 4 models with no cast required is completely insane. In addition, it plays more into the 'bad game' of having all of your Gremlins sit behind a building doing sac/summon tricks. That type of play is not fun for anyone, it's not 'playing the game', and we want to promote actually fighting and chasing the objectives rather than finding unusual ways to trick the rules. I think Slop Hauler needs this change (and as with Bayou Gremlins, could honestly do with a total rework as it's far too cheap and has too many abilities) and you need some other Gremlins that give you more 'playing the game properly' options. If you Reckless around you SHOULD expire quickly. The problem with Reckless is that your whole list has 3ap. For their costs, that is absolutely insane! Right now, Reckless is an 'auto use me' ability and Gremlin players (rightly so) treat it as such. Using it should be a decision. In its current state it might as well just be fast. Another issue with Gremlins, and you can see it on the pigs, is that for some reason all of their spells are very easy to cast. Most utility spells in most lists have high CC requirements. Gremlin ones are generally very low - 8s and 10s. Sure they still have suit requirements floating around, but they even have that less than other lists. yes you will have few models to complete objectives - and this is why you model selection needs to be bulked out by Wyrd, or they need to rework some of your models totally (Piglets and Bayou Gremlins) to make them more fair, significant models. Ophelia is pretty amazing. She has basically everything you could possibly want. I really think that my change to Dumb Luck and Calculated Luck may not go far enough (particularly on Bayou Gremlins, they still have 4 minimum Dg on a 2pt model with it). The problem with Ophelia is that again, she's poorly designed. Gremlins have trigger requirements on some very strong abilities, one limiting factor of which is the suit. Giving her the ability to remove this from a large portion of the list is what makes her pretty insane. Right now she's an uber buff master AND an uber combat master. These changes keep her as both but bring it down a notch. For the record, I think that overall, Gremlin design was done in the classic 'all or nothing' style. And, I think that's really bad for the game. You basically win or lose based on 'dumb luck', which is not fun for you or your opponent. Some games every Gremlin will miss and all of your Pigapulted dudes will die on impact; some games your guys will oneshot all of the opponent's 8 point models. It's not great for anyone. Gremlins need the biggest overhaul of all, to stop them playing the 'hope' game and give them the tools to actually play properly and interact with the opponent on a meaningful level. As I say though, in lieu of that redesign since that's out of scope for me right now, the 'bad' interactions are what I'd like to remove.

Hi Everyone I'd like to attempt to write a single, coherent, and concise thread that contains feedback on suggestions on the current Malifaux rules and game balance. I know that in the past I've been accused of being too inflammatory, so I'll try to keep this one to the point and I'd request that anyone reading does too. The issues with Malifaux, to me, break down into 4 categories: 1) Luck Factor The Red Joker and Black Joker, as they stand, inject a lot of randomness into a game that already has a very large random factor. With some small rules changes this luck factor could be minimised so that skill and strategy can be the dominant factor in games. 2) Game Balance The problem with Malifaux's game balance is not that it does not exist, but rather than it only exists within very specific tiers. As a very fuzzy way of thinking, you could argue that Rezzers and Neverborn are balanced against eachother because Rezzers can take Kirai and Neverborn can take Collodi, but the full spectrum of models available to us are not balanced against eachother. In an ideal situation every faction and master has access to various viable strategies depending on opponent, strategy, terrain, etc; as it stands now, this selection is limited because of the wildly varying power level between models (ie, "imbalance") In addition to wanting more models to be viable, the viability of said models also goes a long way to redressing the balance of many models that have broken or somewhat broken interactions (notably Collodi, Hamelin, Somer, and Pandora). Although these broken interactions should be fixed, when the general power level of models is on a par and when any given player has a multitude of options at their command, they are more likely to be able to compete with said broken strategies. Currently the focus is on releasing new models and getting new content out to us; this is great, however by fixing existing models, of which there are many (both models that are nigh-unusable and models that are distinctly average that could be fixed to give us more options) Malifaux could get a whole new lease of life without needing new sculpts. 3) Strategies and Schemes Malifaux's other problems are compounded by the interactions of the models with the victory conditions. As fuzzy examples, you will have a difficult time beating Hamelin in any strategy involving model count, or a difficult time beating Collodi in Destroy the Evidence. Strategies really need to be reworked with the realities of certain factions in mind, as well as generally focusing less on model count (which inherently favours certain crews) and more on interactive objectives or other battlefield factors. In addition, there is a very large variance in master/faction schemes. They vary from the nigh-impossible (Dreamer) to the 'free 2 vp' (Leveticus, Kidnap). Some factions are almost completely restricted to common schemes (Guild, Rezzers) whilst others have a wealth of great schemes to choose from (Arcanists). An overhaul of these would give players some totally new objectives to focus on and really open the game up for every faction. 4) Rules Changes There are a some minor rules changes that need to be made, outside of changes to actual models. However, in general I feel that the Malifaux ruleset is very solid and the problems arise from models and in some cases their interactions with the rules, rather than the rules themselves. Wyrd have done a good job of fixing some of the more outlandish issues (such as Bury) and hopefully they'll continue on down this track, so I don't feel it's as high priority to discuss. Summary Overall, I feel that a combination of the following: -Reducing luck factor -Balancing out power level by reworking existing models -Overhauling strategies and schemes -Minor rules changes Would go a very long way to bringing Malifaux to an even better place than it is already. A Spreadsheet! I've collected all of the rules changes, ability and model updates (Book 1 and 2 only so far) that I feel are necessary into a single spreadsheet, available here: Click Here to see the Malifaux Collated Change Suggestion Spreadsheet Headlines include: Buffing Book 1 Masters caches and Wk/Df stats Buffing lots of of minions across the board, notably those with low stats or missing AP modifiers, to bring more minions into a usable state Toning down some Masters and Henchmen, mostly from Book 2 Altering select abilities to be more worthwhile and/or less gamebreaking Not talking about Hamelin or related models because it's too big a change for the scope of this document I've not yet gotten into looking at Strategies and Schemes as I think there is a lot of balance and testing work to be done to make them right, which is out of scope here, and also suggesting too many changes at once is bad. I've also avoided Book 3 for now, as Avatars are dependant on their base master a lot and I've suggested a lot of base master changes, and Book 3 minions are a bit fresh for changes when Book 1 and 2 have so much still to talk about. Thanks for reading and I hope this is taken as constructive! Edit: I've added a suggestions section to the bottom of the sheet for tracking good suggestions or alternative revisions.