House Rules for Summoning in low-SS games?

[Math Mathonwy]

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 played quite a few small games with limited model pools to choose from as part of a Slow grow league I took part in during the fall. I catalogued my games here:

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103373-the-amazing-adventures-of-slow-growing-guild-mcmourning-in-helsinki/

They were fun, tight and tactical. Not perfectly balanced, no, but close enough to be fun. There were no summoners present in those games but what they do is, often, break the balance badly enough to result in a non-fun game.

This is all simply based on my experience as well as those of others. There's no grand theory behind it all and I do agree that, on paper, it would seem that Levy or Vikkies or other super deadly Masters would also result in a no-fun game. Can be and maybe those need some looking into as well - who knows.

But it is possible to tackle one problem at a time. And this thread's title is kind of a dead giveaway on what this particular thread is about, don't you think?

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.

I never said anything like that. Fetid Strumpet claimed that having a very strict sweet spot points level is an intrinsic of skirmish games. This is patently untrue and I disagreed with that. Furthermore I have said several times that Malifaux isn't balanced at low levels so I have absolutely no idea how you could come to the conclusion that I was saying something like that. Utterly baffling.

 

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

Won't happen, sorry.

Beginners playing with starters, Slow grow leagues, small tournaments - that is going to happen. You don't have to like it but it is useless to try to fight it.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I claimed no such thing. That is you putting words in my mouth. I said that any game were you have few tools to accomplish your goals gets wildly swingy te fewer tools you have. I did alot if demoing and fun games last edition at 15 and 20 ss and UNIVERSALLY any master that was a killing powerhouse would almost always win the game if the opponent wasnt also the same.

And if they were it came down to who killed the other first.

[Omenbringer]

I never said anything like that. ...Furthermore I have said several times that Malifaux isn't balanced at low levels so I have absolutely no idea how you could come to the conclusion that I was saying something like that. Utterly baffling.

 

You stated that low SS games are imbalanced in the quote I pulled in that post above(#62 for those interested). I was however addressing another part of that quoted section from you here (I knew I should have split the quote but was lazy when formatting);

 

Math Mathonwy, on 01 Jan 2015 - 4:00 PM, said:

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

 

I simply disagree that Malifaux is any more balanced (especially at non-recommended levels or formats) than any other game and was referencing the Henchman Hardcore format as an example of that. Malifaux is a wonderful game but it is not devoid of the imbalances and lack of clarity that other games have. In a game with this many complex interactions in it, balance is a very ephemeral thing and is usually tied to so called "Hard Counters" (of which Malifaux has quite a few).

 

And just to be clear I meant no offense in the post and apologize if any was given. My opinion on the balance level of the game is exactly that, my opinion and is in no way more valid than any other.

[Pyrflamme]

I personally don't have much of a stake in this debate (I play primarily TT with an eye to expanding into guild, and my previous games versus Ramos/Nicodem haven't been too terrible), but while reading, I did have a thought that I decided might be worth throwing into the mix.

 

In Warmachine/Hordes, there's a rule called "Killbox" which frequently pops up in the official scenario play documents. Basically, if a warcaster/warlock (closest Malifaux parallel would be a Master) ends a turn, starting with the second turn, completely with 14 inches of the back of their deployment zone (bearing in mind that WMH boards are 4 feet by 4 feet), the opponent scores 2 VP (typically out of ~5 VP needed to win by scenario).

 

In Warmachine/Hordes, in addition to a scenario win, it's a valid win condition to kill the opponent's warcaster/warlock, so it's a guard against a player camping their warcaster/warlock in their deployment zone all game, forcing the players to assume some element of risk in exchange for their opponent not getting a leg up as far as winning scenario goes. Since deployment zones are 7" and 10" for players 1 and 2, it's not particular onerous for either player to not be completely within 14" of the back of the deployment zone by the end of their second turn.

 

Malifaux is a touch different - not just in board size, but in that one may effectively be required to get their master close to their own deployment zone during the course of the game - maybe killing a model hiding during Reconnoiter, or removing an enemy Power Ritual scheme marker. However, maybe a generic rule called "Lead by Example" or something of that nature, that asks Masters to advance up the board (towards the center?) at least once during the course of the game, and awarding VP to the enemy should they fail to do so, might be interesting. It would force Masters into the mix at least once, requiring players to consider how to defend them, and would act as a pseudo-AP tax, albeit just in the form of walk actions.

 

I think it would be an interesting house rule that wouldn't be entirely focused on screwing over summoners and might actually benefit them when the enemy Master is exposed for at least a bit. It would also not affect things like Kirai's (0) Seishin summoning, which I know was a mentioned concern (and I must confess, despite my earlier stated focus on TT/soon Guild, I did get translucent Kirai during the sale because of spirit synergy and models for Yan Lo).

[Math Mathonwy]

I claimed no such thing. That is you putting words in my mouth. I said that any game were you have few tools to accomplish your goals gets wildly swingy te fewer tools you have. I did alot if demoing and fun games last edition at 15 and 20 ss and UNIVERSALLY any master that was a killing powerhouse would almost always win the game if the opponent wasnt also the same.

And if they were it came down to who killed the other first.

Let me quote you:

 

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.

This is simply not true. There are plenty of skirmish games which work in a wide points range, that is, with more or fewer minis. Malifaux isn't one of these, mostly due to the Strategies and Schemes system, Summoning and the power of the Masters.

Some other games are like this - Eden for example breaks down completely if you deviate even a bit from the standard size.

Yet there are games like Infinity or, heck, Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game (or whatever the full title was - though its model count is at the high end of skirmish games) that work fine even when you drop down to one third of the normal points limit.

I like to think that I have pretty vast experience with different skirmish games. On my minis painting desk there are currently models from seven different skirmish minis games (Carnevale, 1650 A Capa & Espada, Arcworlde, Malifaux, Hell Dorado, Eden, and Infinity) and that is still just a part of my repertoire. I'm not saying this to brag, just to give you an idea that I really do know what I'm talking about here.

 

I simply disagree that Malifaux is any more balanced (especially at non-recommended levels or formats) than any other game and was referencing the Henchman Hardcore format as an example of that. Malifaux is a wonderful game but it is not devoid of the imbalances and lack of clarity that other games have. In a game with this many complex interactions in it, balance is a very ephemeral thing and is usually tied to so called "Hard Counters" (of which Malifaux has quite a few).

I think that 35SS Malifaux is better balanced than the current version of WHFB at 2400 points (or the current 40k at 1850). That is what I meant but I didn't want to name WHFB simply because I find it distasteful to diss other games and because WHFB does things that no other game does and is a fun game in its own right. Its balance, "out of the box", simply is atrocious.

You are free to disagree with this statement, naturally.

And just to be clear I meant no offense in the post and apologize if any was given. My opinion on the balance level of the game is exactly that, my opinion and is in no way more valid than any other.

No, I was not offended - apologies if I sounded terse in my reply - I was in a bit of a hurry to write it, unfortunately.

I think that this is an interesting conversation and there have been good points presented and nice quite a few very nice suggestions as well.

[Omenbringer]

I think that 35SS Malifaux is better balanced than the current version of WHFB at 2400 points (or the current 40k at 1850). That is what I meant but I didn't want to name WHFB simply because I find it distasteful to diss other games and because WHFB does things that no other game does and is a fun game in its own right. Its balance, "out of the box", simply is atrocious.

You are free to disagree with this statement, naturally.

WHFB and WH40K have always been a bit wonky "out of the box" largely because of the lack of terrain (why wood elves, beastmen or Catachans choose to fight in the largest open clearing in the forest/jungle every time is beyond me), limited scenarios strongly favoring the "Conan" war philosophy (kill your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women and children) and very limited model pools (only the leaders really feature any real customization).

 

There are many other "Skirmish level" games though that feature balance at least on par with Malifaux.

 

 

Math Mathonwy, on 03 Jan 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

    I played quite a few small games with limited model pools to choose from as part of a Slow grow league I took part in during the fall. I catalogued my games here:

    http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103373-the-amazing-adventures-of-slow-growing-guild-mcmourning-in-helsinki/

    They were fun, tight and tactical. Not perfectly balanced, no, but close enough to be fun. There were no summoners present in those games but what they do is, often, break the balance badly enough to result in a non-fun game.

    This is all simply based on my experience as well as those of others. There's no grand theory behind it all and I do agree that, on paper, it would seem that Levy or Vikkies or other super deadly Masters would also result in a no-fun game. Can be and maybe those need some looking into as well - who knows.

 

This does confuse me a bit as you are referencing a league where no summoners were present but seem to be using it as an example of how they are imbalanced at those smaller levels. Though I will concede there are most definitely circumstances where summoners can be fairly strong, I dont think it is any more so than any other model in its favored circumstance.

 

Som'er for example is an often lamented summoning Master to play against however he is also one of the most restricted and I would argue underwhelming. He can summon exactly one model type (Bayou Gremlin), that requires an existing one as the material component (no Bayou Gremlin target no Get Your Bro) and results in both the target and "free" summoned model being reduced in effectiveness by a huge factor (both come in at half wounds, and can not use their Reckless ability until they are healed,. Both will also die to virtually any successful strike that produces a damage flip in the game). Sure Gremlin's have methods of Healing the Bayou Gremlins and restoring their full potential but they aren't free (Slop Hauler is a 5 SS model), requires a subsequent activation and AP expenditure and the Bayou Gremlin's still aren't the most durable models in the world.

 

A lot of the summoners are like this. The imbalanced ones are those that allow a wide array of options, that provide something for nothing (no material component) and allow durable models to come in at full wounds (or more than the average models severe damage flip). The summoners that fall into this category are imbalanced at normal levels as well and should be re-addressed.

[Math Mathonwy]

There are many other "Skirmish level" games though that feature balance at least on par with Malifaux.

Of course there are! My original claim was, and I quote, "Besides, a 35SS game of Malifaux is likely more balanced than several other games at their designated points level." I'm not saying that Mailfaux at 35SS if more balanced than every other game - that would be patently silly. Especially since, even though I've played quite a few games, I haven't played nearly all of them.

 

This does confuse me a bit as you are referencing a league where no summoners were present but seem to be using it as an example of how they are imbalanced at those smaller levels.

One of the recurring claims throughout the thread has been that 35SS games are too imbalanced to be any fun no matter if there are Summoners present or not. I disagreed with this and provided evidence (such as it is) against it.

I must be writing somehow really disjointingly and confusingly and for that I apologize!

 

A lot of the summoners are like this. The imbalanced ones are those that allow a wide array of options, that provide something for nothing (no material component) and allow durable models to come in at full wounds (or more than the average models severe damage flip). The summoners that fall into this category are imbalanced at normal levels as well and should be re-addressed.

The other common option is to ban Summoning altogether. That affects Somer more severely than the other suggestions.

As for Somer, he is a fantastically flexible Master who can do all sorts of very powerful things. Yet often he opts for his Summoning which is kinda telling that, even though severely limited, his summoning is still pretty powerful. Outactivation is powerful thing and all in all extra significant models are especially good in small games.

Not saying that Somer is especially problematic but I don't think that he is especially crippled by the suggested limitations nor that he is a weak choice.

[Durza]

Considering the differences between summoning mechanics, would it be worth going through and coming up with different rules for different summons? Like Ramos' electrical creation is more of an attack that acts like a model, or Ashes and Dust and its rebirth mechanic, the Desolation engine dropping abominations etc. I think theres too much to look at to just come up with a blanket rule thats going to cuddle one model too much but do nothing to another.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Durza, that's a great question!

 

I'm assuming that a single simple mechanic is going to work better than a list of different ones. 

 

However, I think we should make that simple mechanic in a way that keeps in mind all those possibilities and doesn't break the game for any of them.

 

(Some people have said that creating such a rule is hard - and I agree with them! Some people have said that it's intrinsically impossible or not worth trying -- and I disagree with them!)

[Omenbringer]

I must be writing somehow really disjointingly and confusingly and for that I apologize!

Probably due to writing for a few different audiences in the same post with each focusing on a different argument. Happens to all of us.

 

 

 Durza

 

Considering the differences between summoning mechanics, would it be worth going through and coming up with different rules for different summons? Like Ramos' electrical creation is more of an attack that acts like a model, or Ashes and Dust and its rebirth mechanic, the Desolation engine dropping abominations etc. I think theres too much to look at to just come up with a blanket rule thats going to Cuddle one model too much but do nothing to another.

 

Though that would probably be the most balanced method of attacking the issue (not that I honestly think there is one) it would also be the most arduous one. I agree with Hateful Darkblack that a single simple mechanic is probably the best solution. About the only recommendation that has met with some consensus in this thread is upping Slow to Paralyzed.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yep, I strongly believe that any sort of attempt to house rule on a per-model basis is problematic- it's essentially rewriting single pieces, which will inevitably lead to favoritism, and it's way harder to keep track of.

[Mastershake]

Yep, I strongly believe that any sort of attempt to house rule on a per-model basis is problematic- it's essentially rewriting single pieces, which will inevitably lead to favoritism, and it's way harder to keep track of.

 

Kind of where I'm at.  While summoning can be more problematic when less SS are involved, there is no blanket answer that isn't overly penalizing some masters while not touching others.  Some masters really don't do much other than summon, so if you are house ruling for newer players you're penalizing someone who might've just picked up Nicodem because he looked cool.

 

There's also the issue that there's a lot of non-summoning summoning in the game.  Nephilim for example summon, but aren't actually gaining new models, merely replacing current ones and if memory serves Ashes and Dust summons it's component pieces to the field when it's killed or sacrificed.

 

It feels like any blanket answer is going to be arbitrarily harsh on some masters while not touching others and any attempt to change specific models will be just as bad since it's up to whims of the house ruler what kind of summoning is op and what kind isn't.

[brdparker]

Here's the thing though:

 

People seem to think that this game (or any game) HAS a specific balance point. That notion is wrong at its foundation.

 

It's more line a balance line or polygon. If the Hoarcat Pride card had an ability that said "while this model is in base within 1" of an enemy model, it has +1 Wd,"" would anyone really notice and complain? Probably not as that disrupts the game very, very minimally. If on the riders had a similar ability, you could be sure someone would take notice, and certain people wouldn't be quite as pleased (while others very happy). That's because an extra wound on a rider is harder to take away and the rider costs more SS's per wound than the kitties. Don't get me wrong, it would have AN effect on the game, but I don't believe too many people would call foul about it.

 

Now back to our present issue, which is really twofold:

1) Is the game "broken" at 35 pts, and is there a balance point?

2) Is there one simple, blanket statement to find a balance for the Scrap-up, the malifaux Universe, and Everything?

 

The answer to the first question is no, I soundly believe, and while I appreciate attempts, I am confident few arguments will dissuade me from that belief.

 

The answer to the second is that the game is already within the "balance margin". Different rulesets will change the game, putting pressure on one or several aspect(s) and relieving it from others. If we "n erf" summoners, we artificially elevate all other strategy archtypes. That's neither good nor bad; it simply is. For the sake of the players though, the pressure imposed on the "punished" archtype should be just enough to be interesting but not enough to throw players' internal rhythm off.

 

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a two-dimensional spectrum, more of a matrix of options, each with its own values of pressure on each model in each objective situation, and the permutations are numerous. Here are some examples with an abstraction of pressure put on summoners:

 

 

The table gains the following condition: Theoryfaux: All models that have an action which may summon immediately gain the following condition upon deployment based on the pressure level:

 

Pressure of 10: Zealously Unfair Penalties: As soon as a model with the word "summon", or derivative word thereof, anywhere on its card is deployed, it instantly is sacrificed

Pressure of 9: Impossible battle: Any model summoning another model must discard 2 SS's, 2 cards, and suffer 5 wounds or the summoning fails

Pressure of 8: Uphill battle: Any model summoning another model must discard 2 SS's, 2 cards, or suffer 5 wounds or the summoning fails.

Pressure of 5: Handicap: Any model summoning another model before turn 3 must discard 2 SS's, 2 cards, or suffer 5 wounds or the summoning fails.

Pressure of 2: Rule Worth Acknowledging, but Not Altogether Crippling: Models summoning another model must discard cards equal to the TN minus 3 or the summoning fails.

Pressure of .0001: Pointless Text: Any model summoning another model within 2" of another model must flip two cards after summoning. If those two cards are  both 3's, the model must suffer 1 wound or the summoning fails.

 

Where do we put the pressure? There's really not a wrong answer, but what do we WANT to do to make it fun? People get heated because they believe they have found the golden balance point. The truth is that almost everything in this thread is well within the balance margin. How fine-tuned do we want it? What, specifically DO we want? Personally, I would enjoy seeing a rule that summoners have to acknowledge and and modify their tactics to do so, but overall will not destroy what they want to do. I'd also enjoy seeing that for other playstyle types just for the fun of it, but maybe that's just my fetish.

 

Sorry for all of the abstraction here, but I think a lot of the issue is people are losing track of the reasons to tweak the rule in the first place.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how two dimensions of variables are expressed somehow linearly, or what those dimensions are. Also, I disagree that all solutions are viable.

[brdparker]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how two dimensions of variables are expressed somehow linearly, or what those dimensions are. Also, I disagree that all solutions are viable.

 

First Point:

 

Alright, let me explain this differently:

 

A game has two resources: gold and wheat. Assume they are relatively the same value in the game. Players can choose to begin the game with any allotment of gold and wheat so long as they have 3 total. This leaves the following possibilities:

0 gold/3 wheat

1 gold/2 wheat

2 gold/1 wheat

3 gold/0 wheat

 

Nice and easy, very linear.

 

Now, an expansion adds steel to the mix, same value as the other, and players can have any allocation of steel, wheat, or gold, to a total of 3 resources. Now we have:

0g/0w/3s

0g/1w/2s

0g/2w/1s 

0g/3w/1s 

-----

1g/2w/0s

1g/1w/1s

1g/0w/2s

-----

2g/0w/1s

2g/1w/0s

-----

3g/0w/0s

 

The choices are expanding in more dimensions, and would best be represented by a matrix rather than a list (if the forum had that capability). Before it was "Do I take more gold or wheat and two what degree?". Now it's "do I take more gold, more wheat, or more steel and to what degree?" Complicate it further by saying that gold has more value early-game but less later on, or certain sections of the board value wheat more than the others, or certain characters (assuming asymmetric balance) have greater access to steel than others. We are adding in other potential points of design pressure, and adding in other points where the brain's tactical center may be tickled. That is the core of game design.

 

Second Point:

I have to read over my post, but I don't believe I ever said that all solutions are viable. I did say that there are no wrong answers, which was a little hyperbolic, but the sentiment is there. I should have said "barring extreme suggestions, there are no wrong answers." My point is that there are several "solutions" for modifying a system that by and large is very good.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I don't want to start an argument, but I'm not following your reasoning at all. Gonna drop it.

[brdparker]

No problem man, I wasn't offended; I was just trying to explain. Right combination of coffee and work, and I go into my professor-place. Boil down the massive amount of text (sorry about that), and I want to say that there are many options. I thoroughly enjoy these thought exercises. Others don't, and that's alright.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Sure, happy to debate, but I didn't really see how the abstract analogies related to your initial statements.

[paradoxstorm]

I must be writing somehow really disjointingly and confusingly and for that I apologize!

 

 

A problem inherent in the medium.  I joined my first online discussion group long time ago and learned that bite-sized comments in a medium void of inflection and body language makes for a lot of extra misunderstandings.  

[paradoxstorm]

No problem man, I wasn't offended; I was just trying to explain. Right combination of coffee and work, and I go into my professor-place. Boil down the massive amount of text (sorry about that), and I want to say that there are many options. I thoroughly enjoy these thought exercises. Others don't, and that's alright.

 

Talk about a recipe for misunderstandings--the quote provides a nice starting point for a comment I want to make, but every time I write it, it comes off as an attack on brdparker, when I really mean it as a commentary on the general direction of the thread.

 

Comment: thought exercises can very interesting until they become repetitive and this thread has become that.  Time to stop thinking and head into the laboratory to start experimenting.  

 

Some of the proposed house rules sound reasonable to me, but I respect the concerns expressed by those who think otherwise.  

 

No amount of discussion will resolve this issue---only models on the table under different rules will do that.  

 

Does switching from "slow" to "paralyzed" properly re-balance the game at 35ss or does it just lead to a new imbalance?  

 

What impact does reducing/eliminating the number of allowed summons on turns 1 and 2 have on 35ss games?

 

We can argue all day about whether a given change will have a 0 - 10 impact, but we will never actually KNOW until we try it on the table.  

[brdparker]

Yeah I agree, and I'll keep the abstract and superfluous comments low until I get a chance to playtest some of the ideas (unfortunately, I don't know when that will be... damned work schedule).

 

However, message me if you want to continue the discussion. I'm interested to hear what other responses to my thoughts are.

[Omenbringer]

Now back to our present issue, which is really twofold:

1) Is the game "broken" at 35 pts, and is there a balance point?

2) Is there one simple, blanket statement to find a balance for the Scrap-up, the malifaux Universe, and Everything?

The answer to the first question is no, I soundly believe, and while I appreciate attempts, I am confident few arguments will dissuade me from that belief.

 

 

Despite your beliefs the game definitely has an intended "balance point". As per the developers and the play testing notes, that balance point is intended to be 50 SS. If you play above or below that then the balance quickly skews as more or less options are available to players.

 

As an example at 35 SS an "elite" style crew can suffer as they wont be able to hire all the supporting goodies where as when playing at 65 SS they are can be at an advantage due to being able to hire all the goodies and then some. It is an unfortunate design decision that a crew box may not be playable at the recommended encounter level without supplemental purchases.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Yeah, the reason why I was asking about this in the first place is because there seems to be a balance issue at low Soulstones.

 

I think that Summoners are well-balanced at 50ss. They take a little getting used to if you're facing them, but so does each Master anyway.

 

At 20-35ss, I think that Summoners have an advantage that is problematic.

 

Honestly, though, I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince others of this. Mostly what I was looking for is ideas (from others who agree with this notion) for rules that could tilt the scale back in the other direction a little bit, but not too much.

 

And so far I've seen several good suggestions!

[Parker Barrows]

I kinda skimmed, so sorry if someone else brought this up. Making Slow become Paralyzed is basically "ban summoning for Molly." Generally, her models come in with a couple wounds right into combat. Other than her (0) Action, her models will pretty much never get a chance to do a thing (not counting death bonuses like Dead Doxies and the Drowned).

 

If a house rule is placed against summoners in small SS games, it should affect them at least relatively similar.

[SpiralngCadavr]

That's a good point- I've never played as or against her and don't know how that would affect things for her. Limiting summoning would change all the summoners' options a bit, but it would suck if it completely eliminated some styles.