Suboptimal Crews - - Instant Loss?

[phloog]

Still very new to this, but wondering.

 

I see a lot of talk of synergies, and things like Pandora stacking her crew with Sorrows and other WP test models.

 

The boxed sets seem to follow this, trying to give folks a decent crew out of the box.

 

What I'm wondering is... when you consider the luck element of flips, and the tactical element of managing your crew once it actually starts... is it pretty much an instant loss if you pick your crew based on look or theme or just to be goofy?  I understand there will be a huge disadvantage, but is it a non-starter?  I get that it might not make sense to do something extreme like Hamelin with no models that are diseased, but is it still worth trying for giggles..and a SMALL chance to win?

 

I'm just trying to gauge if crew synergy is 100% dominant of the game play.

 

JT

[Omenbringer]

I would say it depends heavily on a lot of factors. Strategy and Scheme obviously but your opponents crew choices also play a role. If they are running a Objective tuned crew then they will probably achieve VP's easier. It also depends on what models you decide to hire. A collection of self sufficient models has a better chance than a collection of "cool" models that require other models to function that aren't there.

 

It will be a difficult game but not instant loss in most cases.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Some masters/crews are well-rounded (or just plain strong) enough to make pretty strong all-comers lists (or as close to it as possible in Malifaux). Some masters/crews are niche enough that it isn't a good option.

 

I play primarily to theme/look and have a pretty good record. I play my favorite masters usually completely in-theme (or with 1-2 models outside of it) and have no problems with it.

 

Regarding "goofy" it depends, there are a lot of masters with pretty little interaction with their crews (Misaki being a strong example of this) where if you take self-sufficient pieces or modules (i.e. something that gives out burning and something that gets a buff off of burning), you could do pretty well.

[Bengt]

It'd be worse to pick a crew that have trouble with strategy and schemes than one that lacks synergy, like only cheap flimsy models in Reckoning. Few models are helpless without the right friends around, it's more common that they have some action or ability that requires a specific friendly, but they'll still be able to perform all their other actions.

[Vidd]

Don't forget, you can lose and have fun.

 

That said, the question really depends on whether you mean a game with two players of equal skill. I'm pretty sure a good player with a non-optimal (not worst possible) crew is still going to lord it over a more optimised list.

 

The nice thing is, there are tons of goofy and thematic lists that do work.

[Sybarite]

Also, what matters most is player skill, not what you bring to the table.

[phloog]

Yes....I am absolutely cool with losing AND having fun... here is my situation:

 

I wanted to play, and I want my other friends to play, but many of them aren't as hardcore into miniatures/gaming as I am, so what I've done is purchased a rather silly number of miniatures, with a lot of boxed sets and about... um.... fifteen masters at last count I think.

 

So we will be the very definition of casual, so while I know that you can lose and have fun, if the game is 100% lopsided to the point of silliness because either I've picked based on some wacky criterion ("All my peeps must start with the letter K!!!") or because my friends have picked based on 'that model looks cool', then even though winning isn't the ONLY thing, the game would be kind of boring.  We COULD just go with boxed sets, but I was hoping (and I think we may be okay) that we can just obey the faction rules and give it a whirl....

 

...which will probably lead to another question about risks of ignoring the hiring rules.... 

[Vidd]

I think you've got the wrong impression about how restrictive the game is.

 

We COULD just go with boxed sets, but I was hoping (and I think we may be okay) that we can just obey the faction rules and give it a whirl....

Play a few games and you realise that sticking to the faction rules isn't restrictive at all. Have a read of the rules and importantly the fluff as well and you'll start seeing crews that you want to make up that are thematic and fun.

 

Remember, you don't know what the enemy's bringing - you're trying to make up a crew each game that accomplishes your goals. It's up to you how you want to do that.

[phloog]

Even though we haven't done much other than painting, I'm always  curious about what COULD be done with a ruleset...I miss the VERY early days of Warhammer, where we had no problem creating a battle mixing Fantasy and 40k troops.  Was never 100% balances, but fun.

 

In some ways, I'm also trying to see if alternate rules or what we scientists call "fiddling about" could ELIMINATE some of the benefits of skill.  That sounds weird, but we truly are trying to have fun, but two of us have been reading and reading about this game.

 

I think we're finally diving in this week... I wanted to have at least one fully painted crew first (go swampfiends!!!)

 

JT

[dancater]

This question is impossible to answer based on the number of potential variables, here are the critical ones I see (my primary force is Arcanist so I use examples from them):

• Which master/mistress; some are solid regardless but others need synergies Ironsides will do her thing in any list really but Kaeris needs burning and Ramos without constructs or Marcus without beasts would be complicated.
• Opponent choices are huge put a suboptimal list against a tooled to win list will be a lot more savage than a 'goofy' list vs a generic list.
• Schemes and strats always will effect the list choice and victory chances.
• What do you mean by suboptimal/goofy? You could mean something odd say Marcus with all flying beast options, which will be workable but tricky or you could mean completely left field like Kaeris with performers, ice gamin, ronin, friekorp trapper and Burt Jebson as an example where nothing makes sense and its all a collection of disparate parts. Odd but consistent is plausible but total disparity.... well you'll need more than a bit of luck.

Malifaux is unusual in that it plays to the scheme/strat selection and your opponents faction over the 'all comers' list. The game specifically writes list selection in after knowing the terrain, scheme pool and opponents faction, there is sound balance reasoning for this.

 

You'll likely have lots of fun with a goofy list if you play casual but if you hit a game I want to win vs a competitive opponent list you're likely to just get tabled in all honesty.

[Hateful Darkblack]

The theme crews go well together, honestly. They synergize well, and in every Crew box, there's a lot to learn and get good at. You can win games with the box sets and they're a great place to start. All of them. (Note: Some, most notably Kirai's crew box, need more models to make a full Crew.)

 

Malifaux's a game that rewards skill and experience a lot. A player who really knows their models is going to do better than a player with an "optimal" Crew.

 

It's possible to make Crews that don't synergize well, and it's a disadvantage, but good play trumps good listbuilding.

[phloog]

Yeah, all of this flies out the window if we ever considered actually playing in a sanctioned game/tournament. 

 

Probably a poorly-formed question to begin with... really my main concerns were about ability to be creative and not have the game degenerate - which is something that interests ME, and also being able to have someone who is the opposite of hard core... um... filled with marshmallow?... be able to build SOMETHIING that interests them, and not be tabled in Turn 2.

 

It sounds like we're fine...

[J_D]

Raspy

Ice Golem

3 x Gamin

3 x Acolytes

 

Theme? Yes. Nasty? Very.

 

One of the reasons I love Malifaux is that you can play to theme and be very competitive, mainly because there is a lot of synergy in theme crews. It's only when you start to take "optimum/OP" individual models (like people do in other games) that you run in to trouble, because they don't always work very well as a whole.

[Math Mathonwy]

Marcus can do well without beasts even in tournament setting:

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/104866-gunsmiths-for-hire-tournement-report/?p=777006

I would argue that the Masters who absolutely need the synergies are a distinct minority. Hoffman, Ramos, Kirai, Collodi, Ulix are what comes to mind. Then there are Masters like Lucius or McCabe who need Minions but they don't need to adhere to a specific theme. But most Masters can be used, at a bit of a disadvantage, though, outside their theme.

[Adran]

Sometimes I think Math has that on speeddial

 

I'm not going to say that there aren't sub optimal crews, but its actually pretty hard to build a crew that is garenteed to lose.

I think Joel Henry had to play a tournement with a fixed gremlin list where his charity backers tried to make as bad a list as they could, including selecting upgrades that he couldn't use (Family tree in a list with no Bayou Gremlins).

I can't rememebr which event it was, but looking at the rankings, his worst result with gremlins was 10/28.

 

So One side can handicap themselves during crew selection, but its not that signifigant. Yes, Hoffman with 0 constructs probably isn't goign to do all that well, but he will function well with a couple of constructs and the rest of the crew being alive if thats what you want.

 

Pick what you want from what you own, and ty it out, it'll probabably do something

[katadder]

just played a game last night with kaeris, rail golem, 3 fire gamin and 6 ice gamin.

certainly not an optimal crew and I picked it before strats/schemes just for a bit of fun but they did well due to activations (and reconnoiter).

if the schemes and strats work out for your crew then any crew is capable of winning

[paradoxstorm]

 

In some ways, I'm also trying to see if alternate rules or what we scientists call "fiddling about" could ELIMINATE some of the benefits of skill.  That sounds weird, but we truly are trying to have fun, but two of us have been reading and reading about this game.

 

JT

 

Randomness always plays as a counterweight to skill.  I don't think you can eliminate skill entirely, but the more randomness you put into the game the less skill is involved.

 

For example--roll a d10 to determine which of your models activates next.  Roll a d6 to determine walk/charge/tactical action.  

 

The skilled player will typically make more effective use of the random activations, but it does close the skill game considerably.

[Cats Laughing]

It'd be worse to pick a crew that have trouble with strategy and schemes than one that lacks synergy, like only cheap flimsy models in Reckoning. Few models are helpless without the right friends around, it's more common that they have some action or ability that requires a specific friendly, but they'll still be able to perform all their other actions.

 

If, for instance, you built a crew that was:

 

Tara

12 Crooligans - not killy models limited synergy with Tara

+2ss in your Cache

 

And the Strategy & Scheme pool was:

 

Reckoning - kill models each turn

A line in the sand - always there, probably your best option in this case

Assassinate - kill leader, maybe Tara can pull this off?

Bodyguard - protect a non-leader henchman/enforcer and you don't have any in this list

Vendetta - kill target 4+ss model with a specific Crooligan, yeah, good luck if your opponent went big heavy hitter model heavy

Murder Protege - kill target expensive model, maybe Tara can pull this off?

 

Then you can probably chalk up the loss before playing the game.

 

 

Otherwise I feel like you almost always have a chance to win.  In any case you always have a chance to have fun when playing this game.

[Cats Laughing]

Randomness always plays as a counterweight to skill.  I don't think you can eliminate skill entirely, but the more randomness you put into the game the less skill is involved.

 

For example--roll a d10 to determine which of your models activates next.  Roll a d6 to determine walk/charge/tactical action.  

 

The skilled player will typically make more effective use of the random activations, but it does close the skill game considerably.

 

I think your example actually would favor the skilled player more rather than close the skill gap, as a random order of activation would significantly hurt a less skilled player's ability to plan out their turn, while a higher skilled player would be more likely to make the best of his random activation order.

 

Of course if the skill gap is large enough, you could do random activation order for the higher skilled player but let the lower skilled player have full control of their order of activations.

[Breng77]

Even with that Tara crew you could go for line in the sand, then try to deny points on reckoning, essentially though unless you are actively building a bad crew you won't have this issue.

[lusciousmccabe]

Some models get a lot of their cool value from synergy with other models, but there are plenty of others that are solid on their own and care very little about what you run them with. You can definitely win with a crew with no obvious built in synergy (I won a game with plague-free Hamelin last weekend) and you can also win with models you just like the look of, but I'm not sure you can do both.

 

So for example taking a support model you like the look of but nothing it can support is wasting points, so you might want to bring along some of its buddies even if you don't like them so much. If you find a bunch of efficient loner models you like you can almost definitely bring them and have a fair chance of winning, just be aware that your opponent might be able to pull off something that seems a bit crazy by your standards by comboing a few models together.

 

I'm actually a big fan of the boring non-synergy type models. There's something strangely satisfying about not reading half your model's card and just walking it forward to hit things or drop markers while your opponent tries to figure out what combination of actions and abilities they need to try and stop you.

[Math Mathonwy]

Sometimes I think Math has that on speeddial

It's just such a perfect example of unorthodox crew building while doing well in a competitive environment. And impressive show of out-of-the-box thinking and highly relevant surprisingly often.

[Skullz]

The only real suboptimal crews out there are made up of models that do not fit your play style. 

The above I think really is something that is for all of us is easy to spot, and we quickly find something else that suits our play styles. In that way it is solely up to the player using the model and how much time they have spent time learning about that model.

 

Many of the Masters are very capable on their own. I have sent Pandora out on her own leaving the rest of her crew to go alone a couple times. Typically in those games I have not taken another model with a special synergy with her either. (Like a sorrow) Or I did, but that model went of helping someone else, or did something unrelated to what Pandora was doing.

 

And I cannot see how any crew could loss all of their models by turn 2 either. Killing models is very AP/Card/Soulstone Intensive. And not all models can hurt at range. Unless, I think you are not playing on a table with out the ideal amount of terrain that reduces LoS in case of ranged crews.