Malovane

Its definitely shocking that with gencon, dead head, and a new expansion coming there has been such a wave of bitterness. All the excitement for gencon and a new expansion certainly have been miscolored by some negative aspects of a gaming community. There will always be those very entitled and very vocal members who infect and bring down the overall tone of the boards. It happens with most any hobby. Its rather easy to loose sight of the fun and the game and become enboiled in a personal vision of what that game should be. It becomes more than a casual hobby for some; it becomes a kind of relationship with the level of attachment and commitment involved. Being a one-directional relationship, it seems easy for people to become bitter and extremely agitated when the game doesn't live up to their personal vision. The problem when they go off on their tirades is exactly this - it infects and spreads and brings down the overall community. Its self serving to vent in a spiteful, angry, and entitled manner. It does nothing to build up the community and does more to tear it down. If you are disenfrancised with some facet of the game, formulate a constructive post with logic and reason. Passion for a game its great, but does not give you permission to forgo some general tact. Just have to take a lot of it with a grain of salt. I think it all boils down to passion and community participation giving way to unrealistic entitlement. As people invest more time in a hobby, they can begin to think that the community/company owes them in some regard. It gives way to unrealistic expectations and unfortunately often ends up with explosions of anger. I hate to say its a simple case of nerd rage, but it really is an all to frequent occurance.

Starting out with most of my neverborn. And a few mercs

I did and I agree 100%. I'm in for those Neverborn and more I have no doubt.

Its been many a version since I've played anything games workshop, but from what I recall hearing they compensated for premeasuring in part by adding randomized charge distances. Just some food for thought. The change to premeasuring came along with other changes to seemingly compensate for the new gameplay dynamic.

I feel like I'd end up being the exact opposite. I'd look at possibilities, measure every one to see what was valid, then still end up spending time deciding which was the best possible activation. Currently, I look at options, find the best one, weigh the risk of failure vs potential gain, execute activation or assess next possibility. I don't believe premeasuring would speed up my gameplay significantly. Perhaps more importantly, I'm not certain premeasuring would increase my enjoyment of the game. My gut reaction says it would actually detract from my enjoyment (removing some that small level of risk and danger), though that may just be a resistance to change. I feel like the game would become a battle of tape measures rather than a battle of minis. To use an example, playing warmachine/hordes, you can use your leader's control area to prejudge distances. This can range from 10" to 20" depending on the leader. Playing with a leader with a 20" control area and being able to prejudge every move quickly became boring to me and removed a lot of the fun for me. Take it or leave it, my personal taste has found premeasuring to be rather bland and boring.

Can you elaborate on their points? My initial reaction would be all the extra wasted measuring would slow the game down. Is it just that people have to spend less time planning their actions when they can immediately measure all the possibilities? Beyond that, I would say pre-measuring takes a bit of the risk and danger out of the game. I like that level of risk assessment and sometimes coming up just short. Feels very cinematic to me. Regardless, if it does speed up the game and smooth out the gameplay, I would consider that an overwhelming positive.

I was sceptical at first, until I starting seeing the art and wallpapers. I was sold for sure when I saw this: I'm hoping my wallet can sustain the abuse this next book inflicts upon it. Mostly I just want more faction/master specific schemes. The current pool is feeling a bit thin for my tastes.

This goes too far in my opinion. Automatic 3 step reduction in potential max damage regardless of the grade of HtW is far too much.

When I play ressers, I only play Seasmus and Nico. I see that side of the coin, but I don't feel the same. I just find the benifits of H2W by far and away outstrip the downside of the potential lucky damage flip - be that a 3x severe or a RJ.

Long post was long. Edited to hide personal perception of RJ/H2W behind spoiler tag and emphasive the more constructive part of my post. Open Spoiler I have to disagree that this is bad design. Its just a part of the randomness of Malifaux. Its a feature/mechanic that I happen to enjoy. I'd go so far as to make the exact opposite claim - that its good design. I may not hit the RJ/BJ every game. That doesn't make them unbalanced. That makes them random. Its really no different than dice based games. I may not roll snake eyes every game of warmahordes, but it will sometimes happen, and it will sometimes wreck my plans. The RJ's presence doesn't make H2W unbalanced within a single game. Does the fact that I flip triple severe on a double negative damage flip make H2W unbalanced? No, it just means I got lucky. I don't think the RJ showing up makes H2W too weak. I think it mirrors the BJ showing up on H2W. I certainly don't think its too powerful in every other case. Its strong, but players can adapt tactically by trying to cycle the RJ. I think Malifaux does a great job of providing that kind of tactical option to manipulate your odds. In general, the RJ doesn't exist to be some balance to H2W. The RJ is simply an element of random chance - the critical hit of Malifaux. H2W doesn't exist to save you from critical hits. H2W does exactly what it says - it makes the model harder to wound - both by reducing the opportunities for your opponent to cheat damage and reducing the typical amount of damage suffered from a flip. I think this is where I have a differing perception. I don't see the "model explodes out of nowhere" as a problem. I just see it as random chance. I enjoy that factor. Yet, I can understand why others don't. Every model has a chance of exploding out of nowhere thanks to the RJ. With H2W, that RJ will just tend come off the top of the deck rather than out of your opponent's hand. It really boils down to the specific change. Depending on the severity of the change, I would argue the possibility exists to make H2W too powerful and too dependable. The devil lies in the details. Now that being said, I do agree that there is room for a change to H2W in relation to the RJ. In general, H2W reduces the max potential damage of a hit. However, in the event of a RJ, it does not do this. I believe this could be corrected. I brought this up back in post #103 by way of Dustcrusher's blog, but it seems to have been lost in the shuffle or ignored, so here it is again. This leaves the general strength of the RJ alone and bumps the strength of HtW. It would reduce the max potential damage by a number of steps equal to the level of Hard to Wound. It won't mean absolute survival after taking a RJ hit, but it tweaks the odds just a touch. Would this change be enough to ameliorate the situation or does a prospective change to H2W need to go farther? If farther, what do you propose? Those on the other side of the debate - are you opposed to such a change? do you feel such a change would be going too far?

Debating intent is always rather difficult. Here's my opinion - having to rely on luck/fishing to get a RJ off makes HtW extremely powerful. I would much rather be holding the RJ in my hand and tactically decide when to cheat it in for big damage. Generally, that's a foolish tactic to try against ressers because of HtW - you'll rarely see an even damage flip against them to begin with. This naturally makes it a wiser decision to try to cycle the RJ and get lucky. Due to cycling the RJ becoming the favorable move, you'll naturally see opponent's get "lucky" more often - because they aren't holding the RJ in their hand. Preventing your opponent from cheating in RJ, severes, or even moderates is very powerful. I don't see the intent of HtW being the removal/reduction of "critical" damage. I see the intent of HtW being an average reduction in damage suffered along with forcing your opponent to rely more on luck and less on fate manipulation (card cheating). By its very nature, HtW forces the game back into a more luck based situation. I've got to say - being able to cheat in the RJ as Seamus on that big pistol shot exactly when I want it feels a lot better than being on the other side of the coin and having to rely on luck. More discussion please, I've found it to be rather constructive and informative so far - for the most part. Less venomous attitude from both sides would be nice. Of course, its tough to determine tone in text; could just be a side effect of the prose. Regardless, Dustcrusher's blog had a good collection of possible changes. http://www.wyrd-games.net/entry.php?159-Amateur-Rulemaking-the-Red-Joker I find this to be the most interesting recommendation. It leaves the strength of the RJ alone and bumps the strength of HtW a bit. Would such a change be enough to ameliorate the situation or does a prospective change need to go farther? Basically, this would reduce the max potential damage by a number of steps equal to the level of Hard to Wound. It won't mean absolute survival after taking a RJ hit, but it tweaks it just a touch. Those on the other side of the debate - are you opposed to such a change? do you feel such a change would be going too far? so on and so forth

Could probably go so far as to do each master. King - aNico Queen - Bete Noire Pawns - Mindless Zombies Bishops - Hanged Knights - Dead Riders Rooks - Punk Zombies King - Mcmourning Queen - #29 Pawns - Dogs Bishops - Nurses Knights - Rogue Necro Rooks - Flesh Constructs King - Seamus Queen - Sybelle or Molly Pawns - Rotten Belles Bishops - Dead Doxies Knights - Crooligans Rooks - Drowned

I have to disagree here. The BJ is actually also a potential 3+ step shift in damage. Its not that you're getting 1 step less, its canceling out what you would have gotten instead. Instead of a weak you get nothing - 1 step down Instead of a moderate you get nothing - 2 steps down Instead of a severe you get nothing - 3 steps down Instead of a RJ you get nothing - 4 to 6 steps down RJ is definitely 0-3 steps above severe, but BJ is 1 to 6 steps below. You have to consider the full potential damage lost when looking at the power of the BJ, if that makes any sense. Its more apparent when you look at the result during a positive/negative twist to damage. Same thing applies to the healing/mitigation. Its not that the BJ is awarding zero, its that you're not getting the 1 or more wounds back. On average, its going to prevent around 2 wds from being healed. I think the RJ on the heal/mitigation should probably function the same as on damage - be an additional flip instead of a full heal, but that's still rather trivial in my mind.

Would require kidnap be changed since its always hidden but worth 2vp. Of course, kidnap is probably in need of a change anyway.

Problem is this doesn't address the difficulty imbalance between schemes nor does it address which schemes are chosen most often. Why would I ever hidden bodyguard? Odds are I'm getting at least 3 and very possibly 4. If I hide it, I'm already out a vp and there are still fairly good odds that I'll loose 1 more from the half health. I don't see both options as being viable. I see each trending to favor announced or hidden. +1. Why would you want to gamble like that in a tourney setting where every VP seems so crucial? Looking back over the proposed changes - why not always take hidden kill protege, hidden grudge, and Jack Daw to offset the hidden vp penalty? I'm practically starting off with those 8pts locked up. You haven't really solved the imbalance of difficulty between schemes, you've simply shifted where the balance lies a bit. By that same note, if my opponent has a hidden scheme and my highest cost minion is low on health, I may as well kill it myself every time just to be safe. In general, I find these suggestions to be too broad sweeping and too drastic when a few minor changes here and there are probably enough. Surgical changes not complete overhauls. Just logistically, revamping the entire system and every single strat/scheme is a lot of tuning, a lot of play testing, and then a lot of re-tuning. I'd rather see the scope of changes be narrow.

This is true. Ratty's resources make the game a heck of a lot better. Regardless, I don't find the tracking to be an issue. I just don't think adding complexity alone solves some of the root issues of balancing schemes. I don't think its a bad solution; I'm just not sure it is the best solution. In terms of revamping and errata, I'm more for the smallest precision change possible. Looking for a solution that will cause the least disturbance to minimize potential ripples. This degree of change seems more fitting for a v2.0 of Malifaux.

Agreed. Make the easy schemes a touch harder and revamp the "impossible" schemes to be competitive. The range of difficulty just needs to be tighter. I find the main reason I don't use the hidden mechanic is due to the VP penalty. Even with inflated VP, I still would not use the hidden mechanic because of that penalty. Inflation of vp doesn't solve that - particularly in that tourney scene where VP and VP differential can be vital. I think a better approach would be to have some other benefit to announcing a scheme. An extra stone or something small. Resser specific scheme could provide a free corpse or a free high crow. Something small and beneficial that keeps with the faction theme. I also think there should be more schemes that are always hidden. In general, I'd aim for 25% always hidden, 25% always announced, 50% optional announce. Most options would be nice overall as well - more master/faction specific schemes.

In general, I'll have to disagree with it being a hard choice, but that is probably due to personal bias. I've yet to have any luck with announced Frame for murder and have generally found it fairly easy to deny my opponent 2vp when the tables are turned. Same with Eye for an Eye. The difficulty difference between completing them hidden and announced just strikes me as staggering. Meanwhile, bodyguard and kill protege are often still very easy to accomplish announced. Then you have the likes of kidnap which is tends to be easy to accomplish and hidden. This differing degree of difficulty for equal number of VP is what strikes me as imbalanced. I don't feel increasing point values changes that dynamic significantly. With the recommended changes, I imagine we would still trend toward the same schemes being most prevalently used. In general, I'd also say it is very much about the VP. Differential and VP seem to be a big deal for tournaments and every last VP matters. In general, the advantage of hiding just doesn't offset the loss of VP in my mind. My mind is open, but I'm not yet convinced.

Will have to give it more thought later, my initial reaction is it doesn't address the inherent imbalance many schemes have between announced vs hidden difficulty. Announcing bodyguard doesn't really act as much of a hindrance to completion. Announcing Frame for Murder makes it far and away more difficult to complete. In highly competitive environments, sacrificing even 1 of 16 potential vp is a big deal. Particularly if vp is used for tie-break or differential. It also looks like a lot of the kill your own model tactics remain. I don't mind that being present, but it seems to be a heated point of contention for some players. Under these changes, it seems like killing your own stuff off would be even more of an advantage. I just don't think inflating the VP values is the best course of action. I do like the idea of having sub-objectives. At this point, I'm leaning more towards objectives inherently being either announced or hidden. If the optional announce mechanic is to remain, I think it should do something other than provide an extra VP.

This is what I like about the current mechanic - the level of lethality present. It makes taking an "elite" crew a potential risk knowing that the RJ could drop them in a hit. I feel that if you begin weaken the RJ you begin to devalue the cheaper/weaker models and allow those elite/expensive models to take greater control of the game. Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. Its all very subjective. Where do you draw the line on too much randomness? I feel like one of the "skills" to malifaux is figuring out ways to try and mitigate the randomness or at least swing the randomness to your advantage. I think the RJ plays into that a lot. The wild swings seem like such an inherent part of the flavor that is malifaux. Beyond just the card mechanics, its one of those things that seems to really set it apart from other mini-war games. Not sure what it is precisely, but I feel like I generally have more control over randomness in Malifaux than in some other games - warmahordes/40k. I don't feel like I'm at the mercy of the deck. I feel like its there for me to manipulate. The jokers being one more aspect available for manipulation. As far as tournaments, I can definitely see that at a competitive level there would be a larger desire to remove randomness and have results be drawn from purely skill.

In some cases that could work. Still wouldn't be enough in other cases. Even if I got to take the copycat killer for free and/or got extra stones, I doubt I would attempt to complete My Little Friend. I do think this would give another potential dial to use in tuning the balance of schemes. In some cases, this would probably break the balance. Bodyguard seems to be the common easy scheme brought up in discussion. Getting vp for completing and an extra-stone for announcing it seems too good. So as a blanket across the board change, I don't think it would work. As a case by case change, its got potential.

I think it will vary from person to person. Certainly the use of "all" enjoyment is extreme, but there are definitely areas that I would feel need more immediate attention than others. Hamlin, scheme/strat balance, maybe Von Schill's point cost. So for me personally, I have to say yes, there are things in this game that I would say warrant immediate attention. Which is of course a bit of a distinction from immediate change in that I'd rather have wyrd take their time with changes to make them "right" instead of rushed. Immediate attention specifically that those are the areas I believe wyrd and the community should be focused on. Joker mechanics being an area that I believe does not require immediate attention.

Another thing that might be worth noting is cases where games are time restricted. You may not even get to the end of the 4th turn to have levi die. Whereas the time constraint actually makes bodyguard easier to pull off - only have to survive 3 or 4 turns rather than 6+. Not to mention the possibility of levi living through a turn making the scheme even less likely to pull off under time constraints. When considering potential time restrictions, I think we definitely start to see a further distinction between easy/hard schemes. Again, I'll fall back to the lack of a score gradient. Levi dies 2 turns - 1vp. 4 turns - 2 vp. 6 turns - 3vp. Something along those lines would provide a better balance against the usual bodyguard in my mind.

There are several different polls that could be done. 1. Does joker mechanic need immediate revision? 2. Does joker mechanic need revision ever? 3. In what way would you like to see the joker mechanic revised? This poll is effectively #1. Its a simple yes or no. Does the joker mechanic as it stands impede your enjoyment to the point where you want an immediate change or is the joker mechanic enjoyable enough as written to stand as is for the time being? We could certainly get a broader picture with #3, but this thread seems to want to avoid going back into the lengthy 30 page debate in favor of a quick and focused poll gauging immediate necessity of a change. In that regard, its spot on. Speaking in a broader sense of #3, the common responses seem to be: no change, rj is just severe, rj is severe + weak, rj functions differently on negative flip. Perhaps another poll is warranted?

I think this is part of my perceived imbalance as far as schemes are concerned. There is this interesting mechanic of hidden vs revealed that generally goes unused because it immediately puts you down a point in most cases. Hiding 2 schemes is almost 100% handing your opponent a win. Playing at that kind of point handicap doesn't seem to offset the hidden aspect. Your opponent doesn't have to worry about stopping you, they just have to focus on their own points. Of course, that might be more a symptom of several revealed schemes being on the "easy" side of things. I think part of the problem is a lack of a gradient in scoring schemes. With all schemes basically being 1 pt + 1 pt for announced, there isn't a lot of wiggle room for balancing. Definitely needs work in the risk vs reward department. Looking just at something like Frame for Murder. Announcing it makes it nigh near impossible. If you're going to frame someone, you shouldn't be telling them about it. It seems like the kind of scheme that should always be hidden. Earn 1vp if the select model is killed by non-master enemy model. 2vp if killed by enemy master. My Little Friend - its hard enough getting the copycat killer to kill anything let alone a high stone model or a master. I feel like taking the scheme should grant a buff to the little guy or at the very least have a condition that awards 1vp.