Has variety increased in how the game is played?

[Sevorin]

To OP: Yes. By a lot.

 

As far as WM, Im a huge WM player, and LOVE that game (we have a very good competitive group in my area, and believe it or not, there's a lot of variety in that game as well, scenario pretty much dictates it). That said, Malifaux is my #1 game, just because I love the card mechanic, and prefer small skirmish the most.

[Math Mathonwy]

Malifaux is about the only game I can think of where "tabling" your opponent doesn't guarantee you've won.

For a quick example off the top of my head, Eden, Hell Dorado, and Infinity also do this. Infinity especially, as it can often actually be detrimental to kill all your opponent's models.

[Luisjoey]

M2E is what attracted to me from Malifaux (appart from plastic miniature) the in-game motivations for objectives are right not focused on killing but doing your scheme/strategy,and i feel that with the basic system you got PLENTY of missions to play. This game is pro-rpg so the narrative campaing set is also a good choice. 

[vonevilstein]

Personally I think that Malifaux 2.0 has the same shelf life as the half-life of uranium.

 

I think it can depend on the type of player you are though. Whilst there is plenty of distance in the variety of schemes and strategy, there is also bewildering array of crew options and synergies. Put the two together and you are approaching the number of possible moves available in Chess..... However I have met players who like to build their crew (army in other games) and then stick to it - nothing wrong with that but I believe it limits the life of any list builder game.

 

Can't really compare to WM as it's not really to my taste. What will I say though (at a tangent) is that as of 7th ed, WH40K is now another game that is possible to win even if you have been tabled. Well, if you play the Maelstrom missions anyway.

[No Gods or Kings. Only Man]

Can't really compare to WM as it's not really to my taste. What will I say though (at a tangent) is that as of 7th ed, WH40K is now another game that is possible to win even if you have been tabled. Well, if you play the Maelstrom missions anyway.

weeeell... almost. You still lose the game if you end a round with nothing left on the table, no matter how many points you collected.

 

And the so-called missions are mostly poorly thought out and static, encouraging digging in rather than more movement. I've seen them work to make a game more fun, and in that game the winner with 9 to 2 points had only one model left on the table. But mostly they just make two sides dig in on three objectives each, and then whoever gets missions that match what he is already doing wins.

[paradoxstorm]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Talk to a baseball fan and they will tell you what a dynamic, ever-changing game it is.  Non-fans will tell you that one game is pretty much the same as the next and all of them are borrrrrrring!

 

Pick a game, any game, and you'll get the same sort of split--chess, poker, Malifaux, basket ball --- it doesn't matter, you will find haters for all of them.  People who believe that one session is pretty much the same as the next.

 

If the OP's acquaintance doesn't see the variety in Malifaux, he doesn't see it.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.  

[Luisjoey]

At first try at 2009 GENCON release and then 2012 Gencon i though

 

"it´s fancy skirmish miniature game with crazy beauty miniatures, but its like Warmachine/Hordes with less miniatures and more abilities per unit" 

 

And it was the first feel, since i do have Menoth and Skorne, why i shall do involve in a game that plays and feel like the other?

 

Well was the scheme/strategy system and the interaction stuff that calls my attention, a skirmish game focused in objectives than killing the oponent, even with rare objectives like let a miniature of self being killed or leave some enemy alive. The first time i played malifaux and erased my opponent crew but he does win by 1 or 2 points... i was able to think THIS IS A DIFFENT GAME ! so i ordered my first crew and im very engaged with the game scene in my city/country

 

Remember that WARMACHINE/HORDES has a focus on the caster, so tough that if he dies you lose... then the game centers around the warcaster and objectives are very secondary to kill the enemy warlock/warcaster, malifaux is certainly another thing that deserves a good place in any gaming scene. 

[HowNot2Wargame]

Tbh its a bit like comparing chalk and cheese.

Wm/h: army by army activation, hence focus on blitzkrieg style manuvers which incapacity the enemy over one/two turns. Scenarios are there just to get warcasters near the middle. List building focuses on having several 'edges' but enough 2nd string combos to have versatility. Its also at the 40k second ed stage of a war game with skirmish mechanics, especially since collosals came out.

Mofo: model by model activation, so focus is on forcing your strategy on your enemy which is likely to include winning several tactical exchanges. Scenarios are the bread and butter of the game. List building encourages you to focus on achieving the scenario, but with potential to deny your opponents even though you may not know what they are going for till late in game. It is keeping to being a skirmish game, even with beefy models such as nekima, peacekeeper, riders as choices.

I play both, but I prefer mofo because I adore unit by unit activation. It's just how my brain works really. The variety in scenarios, and the ability to tailor lists to do that job has really got me addicted

[ddot]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Talk to a baseball fan and they will tell you what a dynamic, ever-changing game it is.  Non-fans will tell you that one game is pretty much the same as the next and all of them are borrrrrrring!

 

Pick a game, any game, and you'll get the same sort of split--chess, poker, Malifaux, basket ball --- it doesn't matter, you will find haters for all of them.  People who believe that one session is pretty much the same as the next.

That's not a bad analogy, althoug football (soccer to Americans with no style) might be a better example. It seems like a lot of work to squeek out a 1-nil win, and it is, but most games are decided on little things... a pass with too much weight on it, one sent a second too late or early, or someone making a run a second too late. Cue linesman raising the flag.

 

On some occasions, though, everything clicks and you get some beautiful plays that end up in the back of the net.

 

If you don't understand the subtleties of the game, it can look quite dull for stretches, but there's a lot going on. Players are inching up or sprinting into favorable positions. And sometimes someone tries something so outside of the box that nobody can believe when it works. I would apply this to malifaux, and to a large extent, WMH. 

 

Sometimes it just takes an attempt to understand things from a different perspective to understand it.

 

Warning: WMH tangent:

Recently, I heard a podcast where someone described Rhyas as an odd caster; from the looks of  things, you'd think she's nothing more than an assassination caster, but her set-up is better suited for scenario play. At first I thought it was an odd statement, but then I thought about it, and they have a good point. Dash helps her jam her army ino areas, and her feat, if used effectively, can be used to clear a zone and jam it up quite nicely. She defintiley has scenario game, and I'll probably give it go my next few games with her. 

[DES]

For a quick example off the top of my head, Eden, Hell Dorado, and Infinity also do this. Infinity especially, as it can often actually be detrimental to kill all your opponent's models.

 

 

I chuffin' love Infinity. I'd have liked it to be my main game but Malifaux has found a local audience that I can play good fun games with. 

 

Part of the appeal for me of Malifaux, and Infinity is the small model count and the different lists often approach. As a fringe benefit I find the flipping for strats and schemes and list building on the day, quite a social and engaging way to start the game. Gaming is  about hanging out with friends for me.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Talk to a baseball fan and they will tell you what a dynamic, ever-changing game it is.  Non-fans will tell you that one game is pretty much the same as the next and all of them are borrrrrrring!

 

Pick a game, any game, and you'll get the same sort of split--chess, poker, Malifaux, basket ball --- it doesn't matter, you will find haters for all of them.  People who believe that one session is pretty much the same as the next.

 

If the OP's acquaintance doesn't see the variety in Malifaux, he doesn't see it.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.  

 

Certainly true. However they all have an underlying structure and when it comes to games, a shallow system is still a shallow system. They're designed to allow options and if the options all boil down to the same thing, you're choices will become meaningless. The old frontline gamer blog had  a nice dissection of Dreadfleet detailing it's design points. The best quote, was along the lines of the player was just a cog in it's own internal logic engine basically saying you didn't get to make meaningful choices. So while the subjectivity of how much you like that applies, we can still discuss what the underlying structures actually are and what choices and engagements each individual player responds to are personal. I don't like games where I'm not making decisions that affect the outcome. Bridge is a structured and tactical game, which is why it can support an industry and has literature describing and analysing the options available. Snap uses cards to test reflexes and recognition speed. Both card games and you cam't say one is better because of how different they are. however you could make a closer comparison between bridge and sevens as they both use full decks require some planning and strategic choices impact the result. Comparing Malifaux and Warmahordes is closer to bridge/sevens in terms of the comparison.  If you like both fill your boots, if you like one but not the other, no worries. It can be helpful to understand what they have in common and where they differ for research. 

[kross1]

"Soccer to Americans with no style". Nah, we just play a better game that happens to have the same name. ;p

[No Gods or Kings. Only Man]

"Soccer to Americans with no style". Nah, we just play a better game that happens to have the same name. ;p

It doesn't happen to have the same name. Someone went "what should we call this variation of Rugby?" "..uhmm.. well, how about we take someone else's name.. like... football?"