Malovane

Generally, those who are happy with something don't feel the need to comment on it. Its almost always the unhappy that will "shout the loudest" about whatever they feel is broken. Sometimes the sentiment is valid and commonly accepted by the community, other times its debatable. Jokers seem to be a rather binary case - you like the mechanic or you don't which probably boils down to personal preference for degrees of randomness and level of lethality. I'm not sure where the majority lies, but I'm not sure it matters. The clear result of the thread is there isn't a communal opinion that jokers need a change. Leaves continuing the debate an act of futility in my opinion, particularly when there are areas the community seems to agree need fixing. Those should be the focus of discussion. 100% this. Strats/Schemes in particular since they are the win condition. Making sure they are fairly tightly balanced seems critical. Model cost in general seems pretty good to me. More a case of isolated instances needing tweaks than a need for sweeping revision. In that regard, topics should probably be split into separate threads for clarity of discussion. In regard to scheme balance, I heard on a recent podcast that they were originally not intended to be perfectly balanced. The original design intent was to provide a gradient of difficult to allow players to challenge themselves by taking more difficult schemes. If that is true, I think a lot of the current "difficult" schemes make sense. They exist as fluffy personal challenges. However, I would personally rather see a more level difficulty scale between schemes coupled with a broader selection of schemes particularly in the area of faction/master specific. In terms of strategy balance, I'm curious to see what master in each faction are held as best for each. Further, I'm curious to see what factions, if any, are commonly seen to have the advantage in each strategy. Collodi and Colette immediately come to mind in a few cases for me.

I've seen this suggested a lot and I have to disagree. I happen to like the additional flip on RJ damage. Adds a little extra touch of randomness. Makes weak models into serious threats with a bit of luck. Makes the game more interesting to me knowing that my opponents weakest minion could destroy my strongest with but a flip of the cards. All comes down to fate and luck and knowing that bad things happen. Not to mention the nice little layer of risk analysis such a potential threat brings to the table.

I would guess the reason for not buffing underpowered models is simply one of logistics. It is easier to tune 1 model down than to try to bring every other model up to that models level. Bringing a single "broken" model back in line is generally less time consuming than trying to find the best way to buff the perceived weak models. Further, you get into discussions of power creep. If everything keeps moving upward, you risk tipping the scales so to say. See 40k and codex power creep where the newest release trends toward the strongest. Its generally a better idea to pull models back down in line with the original "power" scale.

Quick response is quick. Thanks for the breakdown. Exactly this. Early games definitely gave that impression when running ressers. You don't really remember someone easily slapping around your rotten belles. Yet, someone easily hitting your master time and time again tends to stick out. Particularly if you're having trouble hitting your opponents master - Neverborn stick out in my mind as the hardest to pin down either due to high natural df or those tricky special rules. Of course, there is so much more to overall survivability than that simple df number. Still I find it to be an interesting analysis.

Perhaps from the low df of their masters? I'd hazard to guess that resser masters avg out as lowest or nearly lowest on avg def for masters. Based purely on faulty memory, so someone else can pull real numbers to prove/disprove my guess *grin*

I don't care about the distribution though. I care about the probability of what the next card will be. I know what's come up already. I know what's in my hand. I can figure out what cards remain in my deck. I'm unconcerned with the order that said cards will appear. I am deeply concerned with the probability that said cards will appear. If 2 cards in 10 are good. In general, I'd classify good as a severe. "Good" is certainly going to depend on the situation and what you are trying to do. Anyway, so with 2 in 10 cards being severe, the probability that the next card flipped being a severe is 20%. I flip a card, I don't loose .2 or .8 of a card, I loose 1 full card. Good or bad, my probability changes to either 1 severe in 9 remaining or 2 severe in 9 remaining. This is the reality of my situation turning a given turn. I don't care about the order at all. Again, I say we're at an impasse looking at the situation in very different views that aren't going to change. You're looking at trends I'm looking at 1 immediate case. You're looking at the average result of 2 dice trending to 7 over time. I'm looking for the % chance to hit 7 on my next roll. Probably a poor comparison, but oh well. In general, I'll be looking at the odds of flipping a 10+ or flipping a particular suit or a combination of them - 10+ of crows. Those odds are calculable and meaningful to me on a given flip. The average distribution, in general, is not meaningful to me as a player for a given flip, or at least not as meaningful as those immediate probabilities. I'm not debating what flipping cards does to the distribution. I'm simply saying I don't find that information useful. Regardless, I don't find further discussion of the matter or the math productive to this thread. We are clearly at an impasse, and I'll leave it at that.

This is where things break down for me. I'm generally not concerned where the data will trend over a large/infinite sample size. I'm concerned on the effect within a very small sample size - the course of a single game - or even more often, the results within a single turn. I'm not concerned with the average distribution. I'm concerned with that immediate result and how it affects the next flip i'm going to make. I'm not going to be able to play an infinite number of games. Odds are I'm not going to flip a million cards anytime soon. Concerning ourselves with a single case during a single turn. 10 cards remain. 2 good. 2 in 10 to get a good card - 20%. I flip a card and its not good. My next flip is now a 2/9 chance of being good - 22.2%. Clearly, a single flip will effect the probability of the following flip(s). Now look at a single possible effect of H2W-2. That first card flipped is still bad, but the following two cards are good. I'm now left with no "good" cards in my deck - all 7 remaining are "bad". H2W has had a vast impact on my ability to succeed the next flip. Every card I flip, every card I burn is having an immediate and calculable effect on the probability of what I flip next. Going up against H2W is going to either help or hinder me. I might flip 3 weaks, I might flip 3 severe, I might flip both the black & red joker. Its effect can be even more drastic on crews that require specific suits - say ressers looking for that high crow. Loosing a pair of high crows to a negative flip, or really any flip other than when needed, will hinder the odds of pulling off a summon. This is exactly where I disagree, and where I believe we hit an impasse. I'm far more concerned with that singular case and not remotely concerned with the trend. Anyway, getting away from the mathematics, since I can't see further discussion bearing any fruits, I rather enjoy the option to kill your own model. I adds a rather deep layer of strategy and risk analysis to the game. Will I be able to win this game if I remove my master? I certainly don't see it as a full-proof plan, though that rather depends on the specific match up in question. I certainly don't think it makes for the most enjoyable game. Yet, I like that the option is present. I'm all for having more strategic options and risky moves, even if it is perceived as a rather underhanded strategy. Simply playing as Hamlin could be considered an underhanded strategy by some :1_Happy_Puppet2:

This is where I have to disagree. I don't think the model should ever be absolutely safe. I don't like the idea of guarenteed safety. It makes the game feel too calculated to me. I love the lack of safety and the idea that bad things will happen. Opinions will certainly vary. I would certainly like to see the full breakdown as well. So far, I've yet to feel like ressers have a substantially lower def. Lots of 4's and 5's. Feels fairly comparable to guild, neverborn probably ranks higher. The h2w seems to compensate for speed and general focus on melee. H2W gives the potential to survive while you close, but it doesn't guarentee it. Regardless, I've always felt that the ressers play a meat shield & recycle kind of game. Use the cheap fodder to bring in the heavy hitters like bete noire. Then raise your losses back up again. Of course, that is often easier said then done. Trying to play the attrition game seems hit or miss. Generally feels like the aren't enough ap free or enough high crows available to do it effectively.

One of the reasons I've come to enjoy Malifaux as much as I have is due to the joker mechanics. I love the wild swing they provide. It keeps the game tense. You can't count on anything. As the tag line says, bad things happen. It adds a layer to the levels of risk assessment involved in malifaux. Do you play more conservatively or do you try to count on your H2W to carry you through. Knowing how potent the red joker can be, you have to weight every move carefully. It keeps the game fresh and interesting rather than having a protracted chess battle. Manipulating and dealing with those odds seems to be a skill that sets players apart. Same goes for being able to judge distances. Its a skill that sets players apart, and it provides another layer of risk assessment. Can I risk coming up short on this charge/move? What's even better about malifaux is that even if you have the red joker hit, loosing/killing that one model is not necessarily a game decider. Being able to play to your strat/scheme and being able to win without any models left on the board helps to mitigate the effectiveness of the jokers. The current red joker helps reduce the certainty of completing bodyguard with those more resilient masters. There are so many great layers of risk assessment, randomness, and skill involved with Malifaux. The jokers as they currently exist provide a crucial element to that equation. The main issue I have with Malifaux is the current pool of strategies and schemes. A lot of the faction specific and master specific schemes are gravely imbalanced by comparison, and many of the strats seem to come down to speed particularly when shared. In general, I'd like to see a more diverse selection and a bit of rebalancing. More master specific schemes to choose from - schemes that are in sync with a master's play style. Overall, I'd rather see small course corrections and the occasional errata. Malifaux doesn't seem ready for (or in need of) a v2.0 with wide sweeping changes and/or a complete overhaul. Wyrd seems to be doing a great job of making the smallest and simplest changes needed to correct a problem situation. The vast majority of the game remains relatively balanced and equal. Anyway, I applaud Wyrd on their current game design and their efforts to maintain a balanced system.

Provides Sonnia triggered Explosive burst, the placement sounds correct. Damage is wrong though. Initial target takes full damage. Those tagged by blast templates take 1 severity lower per pg 46 RM. So first sorrow takes 5. Second sorrow, candy and pandora take 3. Second flame burst causes Candy to take 3 and pandora takes 2