House Rules for Summoning in low-SS games?

[Hateful Darkblack]

A lot of people are disagreeing with the premise of the thread - and a lot of really smart people, whose positions on Malifaux I respect!

 

I think the general complaint is that any house rule is going to affect Summoners unevenly, or that it won't be effective, or that it will be too effective and make Summoners unplayable. All these might be totally true! I don't know. I suspect I'll find out more on the table.

 

Some (most notably the excellent SpectreEliteGaming) have argued that it's best solved by just assuming that low-Soulstone games are unbalanced, and never playing Summoner vs. non-Summoner. This seems like it'd work! But what if you want to play Summoner vs. non-Summoner and have it be a fair fight?

 

 

 

In my experience so far, Summoners of any kind just win in low-Soulstone games. Even if it's just Sebastian summoning some dogs or a Rat Catcher making Rats and Rats making Rat Kings, Summoning just seems to make a scarce resource plentiful in a low-SS game. I'd like to be able to play a low-Soulstone game with full challenge for everyone.

 

So far, the most promising house rule proposal I've seen (in terms of simplicity, potential effectiveness, and universality) is the "No Summoning Turn One or Two" rule. I'm going to try it for a few games and report results.

 

If it seems like too much, I'll probably start trying "No Summoning Turn One" instead.

 

If it turns out it's not possible, or it's too much, or that it makes the game less fun, I'll report on that and let y'all know!

 

Thanks everyone for suggestions! Including those who pointed out the problems with attempting this at all!

 

 

If anyone gets a chance and likes trying house rules, try it out and let me know! (Don't try it out if you're already doing another playtest or something, of course, since that would mess up results.)

 

Thanks all! More later.

[Math Mathonwy]

That it's unfair? Largely. The practical difference between "You lose" and "You lose (and I get a free thing)" is negligible. Either way, you lose.

Losing a Bayou Gremlin vs losing it and the opponent getting a Flesh Construct is a pretty big swing in a 35SS game.

 

Which schemes? I'm probably forgetting the tricky ones because I basically never take schemes that I'm not confident of getting full points for by the end of turn 3 (too many tournament games running short on time).

Distract, MAke Them Suffers and Cursed Object become trickier. ALITS, Breakthrough, and Power Ritual become a lot more difficult. Bodyguard breaks somewhat completely. Off the top of my head.

 

It makes me wonder whether it's not so much that summoning is the problem, as 35ss games exaggerating the fact that some Masters need more support than others to really shine. If you can't afford to build a solid crew (which at 35ss, you can't) those weaknesses are going to be way more pronounced. Summoners can cover that by bringing in more crew, and other Masters can't (but some don't need to) - is that what we're really seeing here?

The real problem is that if your summons bring you 20 extra AP into a game, it will affect a 35SS game a lot more than a 50SS game simply because the increase is much more pronounced. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.

The effect is further enhanced because there are very few powerful Summoners outside of Masters. Every other role is well represented in non-Masters except powerful summoning.

 

I've made the point before but the problem here isn't that summoning is a problem in low SS games, its that low ss games in a skirmish game are a problem.

This is incorrect. There are skirmish games that scale nicely up and down. Infinity for example is usually played at 300 points but works for 100 as well as for 500.

 

The issue is in a skirmish game, when you already have a small model count, if you decide to play a game with an even smaller model count you are going to have problems. All that's going to happen if you artificially Cuddle summoners, is that you are going to artificially increase the ability of another class of master to be just as broken in low ss games as summoner's are now.

This doesn't make any sense.

Let's say that currently the power level of Summoners is 1000, the power level of killy Masters is 600 and the power level of the other Masters is 300. If we handicap the Summoners so that they operate at a level below 1000, then that doesn't magically increase the difference between killy Masters and other Masters.

 

That's like saying that any balance tweaks, no matter what they are, are always irrelevant since there will always be something that is the most powerful thing in the game.

You can't just change one whole class of rules to bring balance to the whole system.

Of course you can. I'm not saying that this here balances the system (it doesn't) but claiming this as some kind of axiomatic truth is completely incorrect.

For a trivial disproof of this idea, imagine a 50SS game with the Malifaux rules in tact except that when you Summon a model, you get three times as many. Now, change it so that you don't and you get

 

If we accept that low SS games are going to be wildly swingy and unbalanced I'm personally not sure what purpose it serves to try to balance such a system by only focusing on one mechanic. If its a casual game and you don't want to face a summoner at low ss just ask. If its a competitive game all you are going to do by Cuddling summoning is move the flag of OP from one class of model to another. So why bother trying to house rule it?

Have you played small games? I have and they have been tactical and enjoyable as long as no Summoners are present. Sure, they aren't as well balanced as 50SS games, no doubt about that, but they are balanced enough to be quite playable.

[Kadeton]

Losing a Bayou Gremlin vs losing it and the opponent getting a Flesh Construct is a pretty big swing in a 35SS game.

It's only a 6ss difference.

Hopefully you'll note my point was about the kind of models that people cry about losing - a Master, Henchman or powerful Enforcer that will make the difference between winning and losing all by itself. If your opponent is spending McMourning's killing power on taking out a single Gremlin, you should either still have tons of stuff left to handle a Flesh Construct, or you've already badly lost the game.

 

Distract, MAke Them Suffers and Cursed Object become trickier. ALITS, Breakthrough, and Power Ritual become a lot more difficult. Bodyguard breaks somewhat completely. Off the top of my head.

ALITS, Breakthrough and Power Ritual are easily done on or before Turn 3 by any crew properly focused on achieving them from the start - those are the sort I usually go for. Bodyguard certainly breaks, and I'll fully admit I'd forgotten about it since it's practically a never-take in timed events (though in a three-turn game you could partially fix it by allowing declaring on Turn 2). The others are doable, but yes, a bit less reliable perhaps.

 

The real problem is that if your summons bring you 20 extra AP into a game, it will affect a 35SS game a lot more than a 50SS game simply because the increase is much more pronounced. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.

That's a big part of where I'm coming from with the shorter game length. If that extra 20 AP suddenly becomes more like 12-14 AP, it's closer to par with summoning's effect on 50ss games. Summoned models are unable to interact for a greater portion of the game, and summoners aren't able to spend the first couple of turns just summoning because they need to rush to complete objectives.

 

The effect is further enhanced because there are very few powerful Summoners outside of Masters. Every other role is well represented in non-Masters except powerful summoning.

I don't think that's true. The only Master role that's genuinely well represented outside of that class is powerful melee damage. There's almost nothing on par with Master-level ranged damage (e.g. Sonnia, Rasputina, Perdita, Lynch, Leveticus), control (Zoraida, Collodi, Hamelin, Tara), or support (Kirai, Von Schill, Shenlong, Dreamer, Colette). Sure, there are models that can do some ranged damage (but nothing like the ranged Masters can) or provide control or support (though far more limited) but there are also models that can summon.

I think there's still a common perception in the community that summoning is unbalanced or unfair in general, and I feel like that often manifests in a desire to "fix" it in certain special cases ("In this circumstance, it's even more unfair than usual!"). For some reason, it's psychologically easier to pick summoning as the culprit for a game feeling unwinnable than massive damage, control, healing or mobility, even though all of them are pretty much equally devastating.

[Math Mathonwy]

It's only a 6ss difference.

Hopefully you'll note my point was about the kind of models that people cry about losing - a Master, Henchman or powerful Enforcer that will make the difference between winning and losing all by itself. If your opponent is spending McMourning's killing power on taking out a single Gremlin, you should either still have tons of stuff left to handle a Flesh Construct, or you've already badly lost the game.

We shall have to agree to disagree if you think that losing a Henchman is essentially the same as losing a Henchman while the opponent gains a Flesh Constrtuct. 

 

ALITS, Breakthrough and Power Ritual are easily done on or before Turn 3 by any crew properly focused on achieving them from the start - those are the sort I usually go for.

In 35SS games while still doing the Strategy and the other Scheme? You are probably a way better player than I or anyone I've faced in small games, then.

 

That's a big part of where I'm coming from with the shorter game length. If that extra 20 AP suddenly becomes more like 12-14 AP, it's closer to par with summoning's effect on 50ss games. Summoned models are unable to interact for a greater portion of the game, and summoners aren't able to spend the first couple of turns just summoning because they need to rush to complete objectives.

I do realize the intention but I think that the balance breaks further if you touch the turn limit. I would be interested in hearing about your experiences if you end up testing it, however. This is just theorizing, after all, so maybe I'm wrong.

 

I don't think that's true. The only Master role that's genuinely well represented outside of that class is powerful melee damage. There's almost nothing on par with Master-level ranged damage (e.g. Sonnia, Rasputina, Perdita, Lynch, Leveticus), control (Zoraida, Collodi, Hamelin, Tara), or support (Kirai, Von Schill, Shenlong, Dreamer, Colette). Sure, there are models that can do some ranged damage (but nothing like the ranged Masters can) or provide control or support (though far more limited) but there are also models that can summon.

I disagree. There's plenty of control models (what are Belles if not control models?), plenty of shooters, plenty of meleeists and plenty of supporters. Sure, they aren't naturally nearly as powerful as Masters but on the Summoning front there's a couple of Henchmen and then some weird ones like Taxidermist or Pathfinder. That's far, far fewer than of any other archetype.

 

I think there's still a common perception in the community that summoning is unbalanced or unfair in general, and I feel like that often manifests in a desire to "fix" it in certain special cases ("In this circumstance, it's even more unfair than usual!"). For some reason, it's psychologically easier to pick summoning as the culprit for a game feeling unwinnable than massive damage, control, healing or mobility, even though all of them are pretty much equally devastating.

I have been very vocal in those "Summoning is too powerful" threads adding insight into why it seems that way but isn't. I assure you, I have no such "common perception."

But it seems that lots of people who have no experience or interest in smaller games are coming to this thread to shoot down the ideas for some reason that I can't quite comprehend. Not aimed at you specifically, Kadeton (you had a suggestion, after all, though I disagreed with it), mind.

[LordFezzington]

Having played a few 35SS games and only feeling totally overwhelmed coming up against Nicodem, I can certainly see the merit of testing some of these ideas out. And that's the point: there's no value in saying X suggestion is terrible or that Y is the panacea that forever balances summoners at 35SS without any playtesting!

 

It's surely just like the Beta for the main rules, no? Don't we need some data before anyone can flat out dismiss or approve of any suggestion? And anyway, these are only suggestions for house rules, it's not like everyone will have to abide by them if they don't want!

[SpiralngCadavr]

Hmm... actually, I think I'm changing my stance on the matter.

 

A flat tax or some other minor penalty that doesn't actually ever prevent you from doing something (just restricts it) could be nice, if anyone found a reasonable way to do it, and I'd probably give it a whirl. However(!)...

 

I think the answer is to just play Malifaux at small sizes like any other game of Malifaux (at least how I do):

 

If it's a tournament (well, I actually don't like them, but theoretically) bring your A-list, and wreck things with optimal sets. If summoners rule in small points, then there's a decent chance you and your opponent will use them, and you'll have a strong counter to summoning or some very worthwhile tricks if you don't.

 

If you're playing a pickup, take 5 seconds while getting to know/catching up with your opponent and ask "are you feeling like a {casual/competitive/large/small} game?" and/or state what you're thinking. Go from there, regarding whether you want to make or be prepared for an abusive summoning list or not.

[rythos42]

There may be other problems that appear if we find and like a summoning houserule that we like, but that doesn't discredit the idea of the thread. That the game won't ever be perfectly balanced isn't a reason to not think about it, and have fun talking about it!

 

I really like the Upgrade idea. It's simple, it's small, it can be adjusted and it helps to off-set the benefit of summoning. If you have to take an Upgrade that costs 4ss to make summoning work like normal, your summoning starts off at a disadvantage compared to 50ss games. At that point I'd support discarding Soulstones to summon - non-Upgrade summoning should be painful. Maybe just 1 stone per action.

 

It also means that the summoning player can decide at the start of the game whether they want to focus on summoning or not. A Dreamer player may be "forced" to take it, or may take Fighty Chompy. A Sonnia player may just ignore summoning. 

[decker_cky]

I think there should just be a free upgrade restricted to games 35SS and smaller giving "Welcome to Malifaux" to a model, but preventing the player from summoning while that model is on the table. 

[SpiralngCadavr]

Not a fan of the whole summon prevention, since it's not that hard to hide a model, but something akin to Welcome to Malifaux or an aura of summon denial could be good.

 

...Actually, it's not like Taelor's bad. If you're that worried about summoning, why not just take her? It's not like she's bad if you're not up against summoners.

[paradoxstorm]

 

 

So far, the most promising house rule proposal I've seen (in terms of simplicity, potential effectiveness, and universality) is the "No Summoning Turn One or Two" rule. I'm going to try it for a few games and report results.

 

If it seems like too much, I'll probably start trying "No Summoning Turn One" instead.

 

If it turns out it's not possible, or it's too much, or that it makes the game less fun, I'll report on that and let y'all know!

 

Thanks everyone for suggestions! Including those who pointed out the problems with attempting this at all!

 

 

Been reading through this thread waiting for someone to report on play testing this or some other rule modification.

 

As much as I enjoy the discussion, at some point you have to experiment to see which theoretical perspective best matches reality.

 

Go, go, go, and get back to us.  

[Cats Laughing]

I think there should just be a free upgrade restricted to games 35SS and smaller giving "Welcome to Malifaux" to a model, but preventing the player from summoning while that model is on the table.

I like this idea:

0 soulstone upgrade

Grants model welcome to malifaux ability to model with this upgrade.

Also comes with ability that states friendly models may not be summoned while model carrying this upgrade is in play.

Restricted to games 35 soulstones or smaller.

Perhaps it should come with a "this model may discard a soulstone instead of this upgrade, if forced to discard this upgrade by an enemy action or ability" rule to protect it from Hans (not sure if needed)

Another possibility is to have it work more like the "take back the night" upgrade, where models within X" and LoS gain the Welcome to Malifaux ability. But in that case I would consider charging soulstones for the upgrade and not including immunity to upgrade removal.

The upgrade system is made for things like this.

[Omenbringer]

No one is saying that small games are balanced. All (or at least nearly all) agree that summoners are too good at that points level. So what's the worst that could happen if you tinker with them? They might become too weak or not weak enough? How is that worse than banning them? The games won't be balanced anyhow! They will be beer and pretzels and having fun, not for deciding who is the best among the best.

If I want to play a Summoner, I would much rather take a handicap than be told that no way.

Besides, a 35SS game of Malifaux is likely more balanced than several other games at their designated points level.

Your statement is interesting to me as you are clearly saying that the game is imbalanced at lower levels but are trying to balance it by focusing only on the summoners. There are plenty of interactions which completely break the game at lower levels which are only minor annoyances at normal levels. If the summoner player is expected to play at a handicap then why not the other player? As has been pointed out already a heavy hitter being able to "one-shot" a model is fairly imbalanced in small point games as well.

 

I also disagree that Malifaux at smaller levels is any more balanced than any other game. Taking a look at the efforts that went into the Henchman Hardcore format and the restrictions in that format clearly show that this is not the case.

 

Of the recommendations that I have read so far I think the best method of balancing the summoners is to just increase the Slow condition they get to Paralyzed and call it done. Another one that might have some merit is to have summoned models appear in the friendly deployment zone instead of where they should (also with Slow and unable to perform Interact actions). Think of it as the crew receiving reinforcements rather than something appearing out of nothing.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I like the increase slow to paralyzed thing. The relocated thing has a whole bunch of problems in my opinion because of different styles of summons: a ranged summon that's normally got a marker-based placement might actually have more flexibility when placed in a DZ while a slow melee summon with distance-based placement might never get in to the action and would certainly be hit harder.

 

Also, I agree about the balance issues above. Just had a game where I was getting easily out-damaged every turn, and the only way I was able to stay afloat was through reinforcing summons (which ended up being a very balanced game for most of it, where the two styles reasonably countered each other)- IDK why one playstyle should be heavily penalized while another isn't. Seems like you're just house-ruling a different advantage instead of living with the one that exists.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Summon with Paralyze sounds good!

 

Summon to Deployment Zone sounds interesting, but it could have weird interactions for some Summoners (Molly especially!)

 

Try them out and report?

[LordFezzington]

Quite like the Paralyzed idea. I'd even be tempted to suggest they also count as Peons on the turn they're summoned. Would help big time in Recon...

[brdparker]

Quite like the Paralyzed idea. I'd even be tempted to suggest they also count as Peons on the turn they're summoned. Would help big time in Recon...

 

Well hold on a minute. I too like the paralyzed idea (t'was my idea after all ) and the Peons keyword turn of summoning (nice one!). However, I don't think that should be a blanket condition. I think it should be avoidable somehow (either by SS or scheme marker expenditure based on the turn).

 

Subtle is the key. We don't want to over-Cuddle* summoners. Also, an upgrade to circumvent for the holder and all friendly Peons and Minions in LOS.

 

I'd like to test out some of these at some point, but I can only get a game in every couple of weeks. I'll see what I can do time-wise.

 

*EDIT: Guys, WTH? I wanted to type "over-n e r f", and clicked "save changes" to find that the word has been changed...

[Cats Laughing]

Crown (replace R with L) also gets changed. It's a forum quirk.

[Omenbringer]

The Klauwn thing has been around for a very long time and is tied to Nathan's rumored fear of them.

[rythos42]

I too like the paralyzed idea (t'was my idea after all )

 

Very sorry Brdp, but if we came up with it independently, I wrote it down first -- check the third post.

 

I don't think it needs to be able to be avoided. In most cases, it's a 1AP loss compared to normal games, from a model that you didn't have a moment ago. 

[brdparker]

Damn, fine you win. I missed that. Call it an independent discovery then.

 

I see your point about the 1 AP loss comparative. It makes change lists (a la growth and shapechange) plan a little more to survive a turn, but otherwise, not too big of a deal.

 

What about the upgrade that allows you to ignore this? Upgrade slots are valuable, so that would be a good option to give to a player.

 

----

Also, that's weird about the forum change... never noticed that afore. Summoners are definitely models we want to over-cuddle. But back to topic. Onward and awk-ward!

[Ausplosions]

Stop playing games below the balance the game is designed for.

There is no needs to "house rule" summoning.

The issue isn't summoning, but the fact you are not playing the game at the recommended level.

Neutering a playstyle should not be considered.

Would you consider limiting spam-hiring for Hamelin at higher cost games? What about for gremlins?

Would you consider limiting in game Soulstone Pools for masters with higher caches?

What about limiting abilities that increase your hand size?

Just play at the recommended level. It's a skirmish game. Stop playing it smaller than that.

[SpiralngCadavr]

re: brdparker,

 

Hmm, actually, what about an upgrade along the lines of "while within 10", summoned enemy models gain gain paralyzed if they would normally gain slow, or gain slow otherwise"?

 

IDK, still feel like buying a cheap counter would be better than a universal penalty.

 

Then again, I do generally agree that the best solution is just playing the game at the right size.

[Bengt]

Could a distinct set of Strategies and Schemes for low SS games address the balance issues?

[SpiralngCadavr]

I guess, but I really consider house ruling best when done as minimally and non-specifically as possible concerning anything like balance (or you're getting too far from the original game). I much prefer advanced house rules for stuff like homebrew narrative scenarios or other fun/non-competitive stuff.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Every time someone plays a 35ss game, even across the globe, Ausplosions stubs his toe painfully.

Thinks of Ausplosions and his toes, please. Play only at 50ss!