No Range Distance Modifiers?

[Uncl]

As E2 just came out figured I'd give the game a go, as I've always liked the cross genre theme and the CCG like gameplay mechanics.

 

However, having had a go, one thing did surprise me, (if I have it right as a new player and havn't missed something obvious) - the fact that

all ranges (specifically for shoot and cast actions) are not only quite short, but fixed with no modifier for measured distance to the target.

 

The relatively short effective range I can kind of understand, to accommodate game balance for the more melee based crews.

But it kind of seems to go against the grain for a miniatures game to not include any element of distance when considering ranged attacks - it does take into account other traditional elements such as LoS and cover easily enough after all.

 

The thing that brought this home most for me was Nino Ortega (and potentially Hans I think).  With Focus his range bumps up to a whopping 36".  And he's not only just as likely to score a successful hit at this maximum range as at any lower range, but from how I understand it he is actually more likely to hit as he still gets to include the Focus +1 as well.

 

I must admit, I was expecting something along the lines of the printed range distance for an action being a 'base' distance, where distance to a target that was a multiple of this base would incur a '-' card penalty (or something).

So for example a pistol that had a range of 12" would incur a -1 card penalty if used to attack a target at 12" to 24" or -2  card penalty if used at 24" to 36".

(although if this were the case, 12" as a 'base' range would probably be a bit too much and it would need to be more like 6" or 8" and vary for different weapons).

 

Since Accuracy also ties into Damage, getting closer for a potentially more effective, but more risky, shot would be an interesting tactical decision for players.  If implemented correctly, it might mitigate the early game advantage of shootier crews, as their range attacks would be overall less effective at longer ranges and only maximise just before an enemy closed; requiring them to manoeuvre more to continue to maximise their advantage.

 

As it stands, I'm either in range and can attack, or out of range and can't attack  - so if I'm in range I may as well attack as much as possible as there is no inherent advantage (with regard to the range attack) in moving closer - and in fact as a predominantly Range attack character, where possible I always want to try and attack targets at my maximum range.

 

I miss the opportunity for characters to attempt a desperate long range, against-the-odds shot to try and save the day; or letting a rampaging beast charge them head-long just so they can steely-nerved empty a weapon into the whites of its eyes to watch it drop at their feat.

 

Is it just me?

 

[The Godlyness]

In the words Taelor. "Welcome to Malifaux" And to the forums also. Range has its benefits but so does melee. If you get Nino in melee he won't be shooting he will prolly be running for his life. Same with Hans. Also focus is good No doubt but that means that one shot is all that model is taking so if it misses then that model inherently did nothing that turn. And since you can cheat and stuff happens more often than you think. And vice versa. Really want to hit then cheat that high card. But if you do how does it effect the rest of your crews plan. On the -1 to hit at farther ranges it's not needed, play a few games with some different people and crews and you will see what I mean.

[Mako]

Welcome to the forums and to Malifaux!

 

One of the things to remember about Malifaux is that you may not actually win by killing the enemy - sure, firing a lot at your maximum engagement range is the effective thing to do for a ranged character, but you also have a strategy and schemes to deal with, and those may require you to be certain places or do certain things. Killing is sometimes what you need to do, but if you have a clean shot at someone and the chance to drop a scheme marker for a Victory Point, the marker is a better action.

 

So really, the inability to shoot across the board (except for Hans...curse his accurate shooty ways) isn't a problem - you don't want to just be sitting back and mowing people down with bullets, as they'll be scoring points while you do and you could easily lose even though you wipe out the enemy!

[Justin]

To a certain extent the accuracy modifiers for damage cover this (i.e. if you tied, you get two minus flips, within five get one minus flip, etc). Players already have to worry about the damage modifier set by their duel total. If they also had to worry about modifiers for ranges and such, it would be a bit too much calculating for a lot of people's tastes.

 

There are two major types of management in most minis games: resource management and positional management. If you're heavier on one, you tend to be lighter on the other. And Malifaux is pretty heavy on resource management due to the hand of cards (which is why the accuracy modifiers work well, your damage spread is determined by your duel total, which is determined by the card you cheated, which comes back to resource management).

[Nagash1959]

I came from the world of distance = modifiers and I am glad it doesn't apply here. The table size of Malifaux is smaller. The terrain options already give you quite an effective way to mitigate incoming shots. Even a single is terrible for attacks of any kind, because it takes away all the choice and options on the part of the attacker. You're stuck at the lowest value. You can't Cheat Fate. Your target still can. That said, I've still one-shot a model when I was firing with on a lucky flip.

[Drool_bucket]

I just want to pile onto the already solid and complete answers here...

 

I *love* how range is handled in M2e.  As a police officer that has been trained extensively in firearms (including pistols, shotguns and rifles) that ranges really do "make sense."  (as much as little toys on painted tables can be)

 

Pistols are very ineffective much beyond 20 yards and the drop off is quick.  If you can hit a target at 3 yards you can hit the same one at 15 yards with minimal difficulty.

 

But the moment you bring rifles into play, they *should* reach across a board with little difficulty if a person takes a moment to aim, which is exactly what focus does.  But if you are not aiming a rifle and simply point shooting, which is often what you are doing as you move and clear rooms, the range again drops off.

 

Shotguns are the X-factor.  modern shotguns (long guns with no rifling) are amazingly accurate with solid slugs, the recent ones my department switched to had us hitting large tubs (3-4 gallon) at almost 100 yards with minimal effort....  but I always feel like shotguns in games like Malifaux should represent buckshot and have a "spread" effect.  But I digress.

 

My point is, with pistols gaining range and focused rifles coverning the board in M2e, I am extremely pleased with the rules set being "realistic."  Now, the important thing to counter range is cover and that means terrain.  If your local meta finds masters like Perdita and Von Schill winning easily the first thing you should access is the amount of terrain on your table top, not that Perdita/VS are OP...  my local area plays with probably too much cover at times and we have little or no issues with ranges crews carrying the day... quite the opposite, we sometimes see fast moving/terrain ignoring (flight/incorporeal/etc...) Crews having an advantage.

[Spifferson]

You seem to have a grasp on the actual rules. Was there a question?

[Uncl]

Thanks for the warm welcome and the interesting responses (and apologies for the belated and lengthy response).

 

I’d like to just say that my comments are in no way meant to be disparaging or negatively critical of the game or its designers, or in any way suggest that it is ‘broken’ or not a fun game.

The bottom line is that I think it is a fun, innovative and unique game, both in genre and gameplay.
My intention is not to annoy, disparage or ‘troll’ anyone – only to engage in open and frank discussion on gameplay mechanics and , where possible, discuss alternative optional mechanics for those that may prefer.

 

I perfectly accept the responses that suggest there are a wealth of interactive tactical and strategic elements to the game – I’m not disputing that.
However, pointing out what the game does include does not adequately explain or counter what appears (imo,for one reason or another) to have been left out.

 

I guess the bottom line is that I was perhaps seeing Malifaux as predominantly a miniatures skirmish game that used some CCG-like card mechanics for the gameplay.  Having played it a bit more I can see that perhaps that preconceived idea is wrong and its actually more like a CCG that uses miniatures – a subtle but significant distinction.  Sure, I appreciate making sure crass generalisations is flawed and it is a little more subtle than that in its mix of gameplay; (nor am I suggesting it is a negative aspect of the game).  Skirmish games tend to revolve around combat – so I was seeing the fancy strategies and schemes as really just a mechanism to make the combat fun and tactical.  Sure, maybe the game can be won without firing a shot or taking down the opposition, but once the shift moves too far that way it becomes a resource management game rather than a wargame – and maybe this is really the case as it is perhaps more in the CCG camp than the miniatures skirmish camp.  As such, I can appreciate that CCGs tend far more towards abstraction of concepts in their gameplay (and as evidenced by many of the character based abilities), so maybe it is just that which I am seeing with Maifaux.  I know that is a slightly polarised argument and like I said, fully appreciate the game is more complex and subtle combination of factors than that – I am merely trying to simplify perspective for the sake of discussion.

 

Despite Drool-Buckets professed experience and reasoned argument,  I would have to disagree.  I have fired a range of pistols and rifles myself (competition, not combat) and it is an undeniable fact that, independent of the weapon, pinpoint accuracy drops off with increased range to the target.
I’m sure the reason is obviously  simple to everyone – for the same angle of variation from the optimal of the weapon barrel, the distance between the intended point of impact and actual point of impact increases with increasing range.
So if my aim is a few degrees off, then at 10’ this might mean a distance of only inches between my intended point of impact and actual point of impact – still enough to be a ‘hit’ on a person maybe.  At 30’ the distance between intended and actual point of impact is much greater for the same few degrees in barrel shift – and can then mean the difference between a hit and a miss.
This is an inherent underlying factor of accuracy and one of the reasons why pistols are generally less accurate than rifles, especially over distance; (cos the variation in barrel angle is harder to control, due to overall length and stability) – and hence why target competitions take place over increasing ranges to identify the ‘best shot’.

Its also why every other skirmish/wargame (or at least the ones I have played, which is quite a few) at least nod towards a direct relationship between range and accuracy (even if its only ‘short’ and ‘long’ modifiers).
Sure, I’m not denying there isn’t an ‘effective range’ of a weapon, where hitting you bang between the eyes or anywhere within several inches of that spot is still going to generally kill you;  whilst over a certain distance getting a shot somewhere around the intended target point is not too difficult.
But that variation between intended point of impact and actual is still always in effect and can make the difference between dead, injured, winged or missed.
(And I think it has to be considered that  Drool-Bucket is talking about modern firearms and combat techniques, which are largely about consistency of controlled shooting, in keeping the weapon stable for tight-knit grouping within a defined target area – not quasi historical firearms handled by hip shooting gunslingers taking reaction pot-shots).

So taking that into account, I would have to disagree that this is factored into the games accuracy damage modifier’s as suggested by Justin.  From my perspective its quite the reverse, since in gameplay terms I am going to be just as accurate with my shot whether I hit you at 6”, 12” or anything up to my maximum attack range.

 

What I am suggesting is that you hit someone at longer range, you will likely do less damage because the distance between that optimal point of impact and the actual point of impact will be greater (hit or winged).
I’m not actually suggesting that there  is anything wrong with the accuracy/range/damage levels as they are in the game or that it should be easier to hit folks at 12” than it currently is.  Just that it seems like an abstraction step too far to suggest that up to (say) 12” there is no difference in the accuracy of my shot, but beyond that distance I cannot hit anything.  Even if there is a sharp drop-off in accuracy, it is a drop off, not a sudden wall.
Yes, you’re right in that a negative card modifier does create a huge effect – but for me this plays to the advantage of allowing it for increased ranges, by offering an increasingly limited return on spending actions to shoot at targets beyond the weapons effective range – whilst still allowing a player the choice of doing so.

 

I see a lot of comments mentioning cover and its use to mitigate the effect of ranged weapons in the game and that a balance of cover and cover types on the gaming table is required to make the game 'fair' between different crews utilising different ranged/melee tactics.
For me, what this actually says is that the rather abstract compromise in missile weapon ranges is really all about maintaining game balance in a game where a lot of the characters only have melee combat capability.  I can fully appreciate that fact, much more than any ‘real world’ argument; (lets face it – if you don’t want to get shot then you either stand behind something or stand further away) – it is difficult to achieve a game balance in a game that attempts to focus equally on melee and missile combat; ( the real world situation being that, unless it is in very tight quarters or they are overwhelmed by numbers, any force armed with firearms is going to take down those that aren’t before they get into any kind of threat range).
At the end of the day, it’s a game – and like any game it makes compromises and abstractions with regard to the real world actions and situations it attempts to model, in order to make the game fun, playable and balanced.
If fixed ranges was a requirement to do this, then so be it.  I think it’s a bit of a shame because it removes, what is for me, a tactical decision from the player; ( ie. ‘do I take the shot from here or move closer for a better shot with greater risk’). As it stands, once my target is at my maximum range then I have no need to move closer.

 

And from my limited perspective I’m not sure that just leaving this element out was the only option and I think it could be included without upsetting game balance.

But you’re right – I’m a relatively new player and I take on board the comments that have been made.  I’ll play a bit more, try some different crew mixes and see how it goes.

 

Then maybe at some point we’ll try a house rule in our group – something like:
Printed ranges for projectile attacks are the ‘effective’ range.
Any attacks against targets at less than half this range get +1 card.
Attacks at targets greater than this range, up 1 ½ times the printed range get -1 card.
Attacks at targets greater than 1 ½ times this range up 2 times the printed range get -2 cards.
Etc.
Overall, I don’t think this will generally affect the majority of attacks made.  There will be some encouragement for players to get up close and personal to deliver an attack with a bonus, but if they do so they will invariably end up in engaged the round after (if they do not kill their target).
At longer ranges there will be diminishing returns on the effectiveness of any projectile attack, but it will not prohibit players from trying, especially in dire need where this is perhaps the only course of action; (so it will not be that you cannot at least attempt to take down that character about to drop a game winning marker just because they are 13” away).
We’ll give that a go, see how it goes, then make a decision on how to play our games, because at the end of the day, we should all play our games in whatever way suits us best.

[Mister Shine]

Calling Malifaux a CCG is kinda like calling 40k or Warmahordes a dice game.

[T.N.T.-Tommy]

Errr, first of all you mention Focus action. That by itself is a 'penalty'. To increase the range you have to spend an AP (to aim or focus on spell casting or whatever).

 

As well as argue about how probable/improbable it is to hit a target at 15 or 30 meters you could start to question the lethality of attack a vs attack b.

Also, have you ever tried to draw, aim and shoot in the same movement? A target too close, that also move might actually be harder to hit than the same moving target further away, simply by the fact that you have to move the barrel of the gun further to keep it ained at the target.

 

However, all this is beside the point. This is a game and a game have to to some degree be balanced. As it stand currently the game is rather balanced between shooting and melee (some exceptions ofc) and to introduce "more realistic rules for shooting" (in a game that have magic, risen corpses, angry mini-dragons and green rednecks) would shift that balance. Different games have different rule sets and different ways to score a winning game. This is Malifaux, we shoot from the hip, have gremlins and mindless zombies.

[The Godlyness]

Focus is no way a "penalty" it's always beneficial.

[Drool_bucket]

Focus is no way a "penalty" it's always beneficial.

Until you flip the BJ from the positive flip to the damage flip! 

 

@Uncl - your reponses to my real life experience are very valid and I agree with your conclusions, but I feel like we are missing in one key aspect that you lay out there right off.  You are a competition shooter in which inches matter.   I shoot human sized targets and only care if I score "inside the milk bottle."  So whether I am 5 yards or 15 yard as long as I am inside a roughly 20" by 14" area it's a hit.  Your idea of "winging" them may hold true, but that area that I am required to hit is not considered "winging" them, but center mass hits.

[Ratsmitglied]

I personally think that range modifiers are fine in larger scale games where ground scale vs. figure scale usually has quite a discrepancy (otherwise you wouldn't fit the armies on the table), whereas in a skirmish scale game there usually isn't this same discrepancy, so range modifiers aren't necessary.

 

If thinking in terms of figure scale, Malifaux is approximately 1/56 scale (probably slightly larger), so the board, at 3' square is the equivalent of 168' square, which for those of us using the metric system is about 50m square. This means that a pistol with a range of 8" has an equivalent range of about 12', or about 3.5m, a range at which I could hit a man sized target pretty reliably (and I'm not a pistol shooter by any stretch of the imagination)! The chances of missing are represented by the fact that you have an opposed duel, and where you hit is represented by the variable damage.

[T.N.T.-Tommy]

Focus is no way a "penalty" it's always beneficial.

 Focus is still an AP (or more) spent to gain focus. That is an AP you can't spend on another shot, to move or to interact.

Focus is benefical but it do not come free (not even if you for some reason can take (1) interacts as (0))

[Mister Shine]

A focused shot is often better than 2 shots. Just because it costs AP doesnt make it a penalty. Your models dont take 2 penalties a turn, 3 penalties for masters. AP is the resource you spend on you action toolbox, of which focus is a reeeeeeally great tool.