Tournaments With Bans: Relevant to Malifaux?

[enderwiggin]

The part the people unhappy with it are forgetting (be it balance or one arm behind the back tying) is that it will affect both players. If the game is balanced as-is then this will not effect it when you have an unlimited model pool. If the models are that balanced against each other individually, then you could also argue that it doesn't matter if the pool is 5 or fifty masters. I don't feel masters are balanced, but that is a discussion for another thread. For the purposes of this thread though, if I'm going to the tournament I'm aware of the rules and won't be complaining if they come up after already joining, I knew what I was getting into.

 

 

Plus, anyone spending any moderate to severe amount of time tailoring up a single list isn't going to be in this theoryfaux tournament for serious reasons since the very first thing you should learn in this game is to go for the VPs and the second is to build your crew around obtaining the objectives/VPs.

[Ferossa]

Plus, anyone spending any moderate to severe amount of time tailoring up a single list isn't going to be in this theoryfaux tournament for serious reasons since the very first thing you should learn in this game is to go for the VPs and the second is to build your crew around obtaining the objectives/VPs.

 

This is exactly why I like the idea. I think the Malifaux meta has a tendency to get bogged down around a couple masters and styles of play. There's this idea that if a master is really good at one strategy, you should always take them for that strategy. And it is boring and awful to play the same Ramos or Leveticus or Collodi game against players who think like that.

 

As for painting models, no one has a problem with fixed-faction tournaments, which limits your models similarly. If someone paints seventeen crew boxes, it it unfair to make them choose their favourite faction?

 

My understanding of the steps:

1. Define and place terrain
2. Determine encounter size
3. Announce factions
4. Determine deployment
5. Determine strategies and schemes
6. Both players declare an opposing master to ban
7. Hire and reveal crews
8. Choose and reveal schemes
9. Deploy crews

If I were running this, I'd use open schemes and strategies similar to Gaining Grounds, so players could see what they are for both sides. People seem to assume this will lead to other players banning your favourite masters/models so they don't have to fight them, and if you find this to be a continuous problem, you should really re-evaluate the maturity of the ostensible adults you spend time with.

[moxypoo]

 People seem to assume this will lead to other players banning your favourite masters/models so they don't have to fight them, and if you find this to be a continuous problem, you should really re-evaluate the maturity of the ostensible adults you spend time with.

 

Ferossa, this is the one part of your post that I disagree with. In a casual setting with friends, I think it's easy enough to say, "hey, I don't really want to play against Master X tonight. Would you mind playing a different one?"  In a tournament however, the goal is to win, not to make sure that your opponent has fun. Now, I'm not saying one should be an ass or try to be disagreeable; it's perfectly possible to be a likable person who is still competitive and focused on winning.

 

To use an example to illustrate my point:

 

My good Arcanist playing friend primarily plays Ramos, especially in Reconnoiter.  If we're playing a random game he doesn't mind practicing with a different master if I don't want to play against Ramos, and he expects me to extend the same courtesy.  If we played in a tournament, I would absolutely expect him to use Ramos in reconnoiter, because that's his strongest chance of winning.  Being able to ban him from playing Ramos in this situation would give me a stronger chance of winning, so why wouldn't I ban Ramos?  I don't think this is an immature attitude, so I think it's a little unfair to label it as such.

 

That's why I support this as an alternative format like Henchmen hardcore or Enforcer brawl, and not as the main tournament format.  If it were the main format you'd never see Leveticus, Collodi, Dreamer, Ramos, or any master that a player is known to favor.  But it could be a lot of fun and force players to become adept at piloting multiple masters as an alternative format.

[The Zinc Lich]

I'm going to preface this post with the statement that these are my experiences with the Malifaux community, they are highly subjective, and your mileage may vary.

 

I think your take on dnc & generell wn/h meta isnt quite right, but the german community and meta tends to differs vastly from others and this isnt the right place for this discussion i think.
 

[snip]

Additional u add the element of rationing, when top players have to safe their best tools for the late games.

 

Actually, I'd really like to hear about the German wm/h meta. I hear a lot about the NA one from Muse On Minis and its affiliated podcasts, and I think that the different ways people play games around the world is really interesting. PM me?

 

I, personally, don't like rationing my games. It makes me feel like I'm only allowed to have X amount of fun, and I have to portion it out appropriately. The idea of putting in bans is not to deprive your opponent of resources (although it does have that effect), the idea is to force people to solve problems when the most fitting tool for the job is not available.

 

There is an affiliated but separate facebook group called "A Wyrd Place Vassal League" that runs vassal leagues and primarily draws players from the A Wyrd Place group.  The current league is a double elimination banhammer format, where you can do exactly what you suggest (ban a master from your opponent's faction). I'm not in it, as I have a hell of a time scheduling vassal games due to real life and my time zone (GMT-10), but it seems to be running well.

 

 

I'm in the right timezone, but I work evenings, which is almost as bad. Oh well, at least I know it exists now...

 

The biggest problem I have is that the idea ignores or even discourages a major part of the hobby, painting.

 

[snip]

 

In LoL or Vassal games, this is not an issue, but at the table it is a real kick in the teeth to some very dedicated fans not to mention the people who just like one master or are newer and have fewer options.

 

Let's be honest, people who play only one master aren't exactly playing to win tournaments. Malifaux is just not a game where every master is a good choice for every board. I am actually in favor of fixed master tournaments for newer players, but I just like having new tournament types to play around with.

 

If you really are a huge hobbyist, then chances are you are going to have painted more than one crew. Even having a spread of three masters is fine for a ban tournament; one of them gets banned, then you pick the best option from the remaining two. If you are unable to have fun without playing your newest, most scenic crew, you should probably be playing casual games, anyway.

 

 

I would rather see "Easy Buttons" addressed with real changes rather than avoidance. Avoidance doesn't fix things it just allows them to fester, take a look at last edition to see a few examples.

 

I disagree with you on this point. Changing the rules on models requires a huge investment on the part of Wyrd, and they have done a really good job, for the most part, of giving us a game without wildly swinging outliers that need to be reigned in. I don't think that Ramos needs to be errata'd; his play style is pretty balanced, if a little strong, except when it comes to Recon/Interference. On the other hand, he's not a great pick for Reckoning/Head Hunter/Collect the Bounty because of all those low-wound models running around.

 

Collette, Marcus, and Kaeris all have good tools for the victory conditions Ramos excels at, but you see them talked about and explored a lot less because Ramos is such an easy answer. Even Rasputina has a good Recon game thanks to Acolytes getting all over the place and her ability to blow up tons of minions.

 

My opinion?  Ban lists work in environments like video games or vassal tournaments where people haven't spent money on the individual playing pieces.

 

Otherwise, it becomes a way for the veteran players to demonstrate how jaded they are to the new players.    "Oh, no, the game isn't interesting enough unless we have someone else tie an arm behind our backs." 

 

On the other hand, it also lets newer players ban the super well tuned crews more experienced players would otherwise stomp them flat with. That's another benefit of the Ban tournament: you get a chance to reduce crews that frequently border on NPE if you haven't seen them work before. DEF 9 Perdita with the Papa box, Leveticus construct all stars, and Sommer's summoning factory are all lists that are almost guaranteed to blow you up until you can identify the linchpin models in the crew.

 

You do need to know those lists exist to ban them, but we're talking about newer players here, not brand new.

 

All the super crazy awesome people are doing 40k (which draws me in big time after seeing the display boards @ adepticon - consider me inspired).

From what I've seen so far no one has really taken the hobbyist plunge into Malifaux the way the crazy 40k people have - I'm hoping that post-nationals @ nova open, people will be more inclined to go crazy with the hobby. Unfortunately/Fortunately, the Malifaux game is so good people would rather just focus their time playing it instead of getting their modeling done.

TL;DR - No ones telling me I can't play my army. You silly vassal people should be painting your minis!

Personally, I don't like the idea of factions at all - I play whatever masters I like - the gremlin faction is the only one where I seem to like almost all the masters in it.

 

I... haven't had a lot of good experiences with Warhammer 40k. I'm not so well off that I can afford to drop $2000.00 on one of those impressive armies, and that has been treated as unreasonable by the community. There's a lot of really great artistry put into GW products, don't get me wrong, but expecting it to be the standard smacks of the kind of elitism that has made the tabletop gaming community so insular.

 

There's not a lot of new blood in the W40k community; most of the new faces nowadays are the children of older fans who subsidize the frankly ridiculous cost of entry to the "fun" of 40k, and I think expecting that out of the Malifaux community would not change the game for the better.

[Ferossa]

My good Arcanist playing friend primarily plays Ramos, especially in Reconnoiter.  If we're playing a random game he doesn't mind practicing with a different master if I don't want to play against Ramos, and he expects me to extend the same courtesy.  If we played in a tournament, I would absolutely expect him to use Ramos in reconnoiter, because that's his strongest chance of winning.  Being able to ban him from playing Ramos in this situation would give me a stronger chance of winning, so why wouldn't I ban Ramos?  I don't think this is an immature attitude, so I think it's a little unfair to label it as such.

 

You misread my post. The jerk who bans the same masters they never want to fight is the the inverse of the jerk who plays the same three OP lists. Both of them are subtypes of people who cannot handle losing or being at a disadvantage and make tournaments miserable for most of their matches anyway. (If this does not describe you, this does not apply to you.) I've spent several years running tournaments and sometimes you need to break up a potential fistfight between two 300lb dudes. Those specific personalities should be expelled from the community for the good of everybody in it. (Oh my god, would you like stories? I have so many stories.)

 

Malifaux is a thinking man's game, and I like tournament setups that reward deeper strategy, lateral thinking, and adaptive play. If you can't win Reconoiter without Ramos, you're a bad player and need to spend more time thinking about your approach to the game. I have people in my meta who will not play against me because of potential bad matchups. I'd rather they put on their big boy pants and use ban lists than duck me every time I try to get a game in.

 

This is why I follow TZL's posts about the meta and tournaments; everyone's local meta informs their approach and opinions and it's very useful for getting a broad overview of the Malifaux community as a whole. I have between seven and ten years of experience on the supply/organisation side of the hobby, so I care (very deeply) about making it a pleasant place for players new and old. Everyone in the hobby is at least in late high school and that's old enough to expect everyone to behave like adults with maturity and honour. I think that it's healthy to challenge the dominant meta and thinking outside the box in lighter tournaments is excellent practice for heavier, more serious formats.

 

I think that looking at something like bans as taking away someone's toys displays a self-absorption that is antithetical to the hobby, because it ignores that you can do the same to your opponent. The idea that you should always, in all circumstances, be able to use the best tools for the job is fallacious, because it assumes the average player has all the tools and ignores that a huge part of the game is randomised schemes and strategies. Sometimes you just get strategies that don't work with the schemes. Is that unfair? Does that make the game an NPE? (These are rhetorical questions, but you can search through the forums and find people arguing exactly that.)

 

In a tournament set-up, players should be matched by faction for the first round, and bans should be listed by the entrant at registration. When you register, you declare your faction, learn the strats and schemes (publicly listed as per Gaining Grounds), learn the faction you're matched against, and then you declare your ban. I love Misaki. I don't want to face McMourning. If I'm Outcasts v Guild, McMourning is getting banned. (Resser McM can bring it.) Who plays McMourning in Guild? Who tF cares? The point is that I can make a list with a little bit of breathing room. This is also the point where Misaki could be banned for me, in which case I still win, because I do not have to fight Guild McM.

 

People have mentioned the problem of newer players, and I think this is where a double-faction tournament can really shine. Newer players can declare the TWO factions they're most comfortable with (with a maximum master list of six—the same number as a full faction) as long as they're comfortable with a ban for EACH faction. Obviously it's the responsibility of the person running the tournament to ensure that nobody gets screwed, but I think players (and Wyrd) can and should expect more from their Henchmen on an organisational front.

 

At the end of the post, we're talking about alternative formats for tournaments, not friendly games. People need to stop conflating the two, because they are not subject to the same standards or rules.

[moxypoo]

You misread my post. The jerk who bans the same masters they never want to fight is the the inverse of the jerk who plays the same three OP lists. Both of them are subtypes of people who cannot handle losing or being at a disadvantage and make tournaments miserable for most of their matches anyway. (If this does not describe you, this does not apply to you.) I've spent several years running tournaments and sometimes you need to break up a potential fistfight between two 300lb dudes. Those specific personalities should be expelled from the community for the good of everybody in it. (Oh my god, would you like stories? I have so many stories.)

 

My apologies if I misunderstood.  I agree that players with bad attitudes are detrimental to the community as a whole. One point I would like to raise is that players with perfectly good attitudes who are good, honorable (i.e. not cheating, browbeating, etc) opponents can still dislike playing against a certain master and therefore take advantage of this system to avoid said master.  Not wanting to play against a certain master or enjoying playing the same list doesn't automatically make one a jerk.

 

Malifaux is a thinking man's game, and I like tournament setups that reward deeper strategy, lateral thinking, and adaptive play. If you can't win Reconoiter without Ramos, you're a bad player and need to spend more time thinking about your approach to the game. I have people in my meta who will not play against me because of potential bad matchups. I'd rather they put on their big boy pants and use ban lists than duck me every time I try to get a game in.

 

One could argue that the single master ban format  discourages adaptability, because instead of figuring out new ways to overcome a master you have trouble with, you simply ban the master and never have to play against it.  No matter how noble people should be the majority of people will simply use this method as a way to ignore masters they don't want to face.  As to your specific example, I agree that those players display an infantile attitude and that they should man up and learn to overcome things they have difficulty with.

 

 

I think that looking at something like bans as taking away someone's toys displays a self-absorption that is antithetical to the hobby, because it ignores that you can do the same to your opponent. The idea that you should always, in all circumstances, be able to use the best tools for the job is fallacious, because it assumes the average player has all the tools and ignores that a huge part of the game is randomised schemes and strategies. Sometimes you just get strategies that don't work with the schemes. Is that unfair? Does that make the game an NPE? (These are rhetorical questions, but you can search through the forums and find people arguing exactly that.)

 

While I will agree that not all players will have access to all tools for their faction (only because it's hard to source old metal models that haven't been released in plastic), I think the second part of your argument misses the point that both players have equal access to the schemes and strategies as well as a model pool capable of completing every scheme/strategy combo.  I'd argue that in formats like gaining grounds that have pre-defined strategy and scheme pools, it's the player's responsibility to acquire a pool of models capable of performing well in each round.  In formats that have random strategies and schemes, then each player has an entire faction to pull from; banning one master really shouldn't make much of a difference at that point.

 

In a tournament set-up, players should be matched by faction for the first round, and bans should be listed by the entrant at registration. When you register, you declare your faction, learn the strats and schemes (publicly listed as per Gaining Grounds), learn the faction you're matched against, and then you declare your ban. I love Misaki. I don't want to face McMourning. If I'm Outcasts v Guild, McMourning is getting banned. (Resser McM can bring it.) Who plays McMourning in Guild? Who tF cares? The point is that I can make a list with a little bit of breathing room. This is also the point where Misaki could be banned for me, in which case I still win, because I do not have to fight Guild McM.

 

Doesn't this example go against your desire for adaptability?  Instead of practicing and learning to overcome McM, you just ban him and then don't have to expand your capabilities as a player. I suspect that the best players will find ways to overcome bad matchups by selecting schemes and a crew that can still win the game even though their matchup is slightly lopsided.  For example, whoops you're playing Sonnia Criid against Friekrops - you better select schemes that don't require you to kill enemy models, select a crew that can do that for you, or figur out some other way to use Sonnia.  The Sonnia player simply banning Von Schill would prevent this type of adaptability.  This example raises another interesting point: while a master is an integral part of your crew, it's not always going to be doing the heavy lifting.  In the above example, let's say my opponent bans me from taking Von Schill against his Sonnia Criid.  That's fine - now I'll use Leveticus or the Viks leading a crew consisting entirely of Friekorps.  The Sonnia player will still have the same issues and the ban will have accomplished nothing.

[Ferossa]

 

TL;DR Moxypoo making good sense.

 

 

I agree with all your points, which is why I think ban tournaments would be a fun addition to Gaining Grounds or grow leagues. Do I think it should be the only format, or the new standard? No, but I would like to see more non-standard tournaments and variants on Gaining Grounds, especially in the local scene(s). The one thing I really liked about Magic was the huge variety in tournament formats. I'd never recommend the headache of changing formats every week (or, god forbid, every round), but I'd love to see more variety in how the game is handled by the players and a larger focus on the different ways to enjoy a strategy game, rather than a straight focus on VP (which ime is one of the core causes of problem players).

 

 

Doesn't this example go against your desire for adaptability?  Instead of practicing and learning to overcome McM, you just ban him and then don't have to expand your capabilities as a player. I suspect that the best players will find ways to overcome bad matchups by selecting schemes and a crew that can still win the game even though their matchup is slightly lopsided.  For example, whoops you're playing Sonnia Criid against Friekrops - you better select schemes that don't require you to kill enemy models, select a crew that can do that for you, or figur out some other way to use Sonnia.  The Sonnia player simply banning Von Schill would prevent this type of adaptability.  This example raises another interesting point: while a master is an integral part of your crew, it's not always going to be doing the heavy lifting.  In the above example, let's say my opponent bans me from taking Von Schill against his Sonnia Criid.  That's fine - now I'll use Leveticus or the Viks leading a crew consisting entirely of Friekorps.  The Sonnia player will still have the same issues and the ban will have accomplished nothing.

 

This is exactly why I like ban tournaments! Just because you can remove one problematic element doesn't mean you can remove all of them. Like I said earlier, it rewards lateral thinking and strong strategy that covers your weaknesses, which are good skills to build in Malifaux anyway.

[AllistorPreist]

So the hobbyist player, and why this is a kick in the teeth to them.

 

The people I knew in the past who did this sort of thing usually do have more than one army list, but they tend to bring one set to shows. Why? They want to show off their latest work, their best piece and what they built now. They don't want to show off what they worked on last year, in fact, that may have already gone on ebay to pay for this year's.

 

but even if they bring more than one master, what happens when that master get banned over and over again? Let's be honest, when people hear this idea, there is usually one master on their hit list, the one no one wants to deal with, or maybe just the one their opponent practices with all the time so they can even win at the strategies and schemes that master is supposed to be no good with.

 

The biggest NPE in miniature games is not being able to play with the list that you purchased, painted and practiced with and there is a big difference between strategies, or being tied to a single faction encouraging you to take certain things, and someone being able to just veto your crew.

 

Now I know there are tourny types that do limit you, but at least in say Califaux's hardcore, no summoning is right on the wrapper. It is not a surprise at the table that no one will let me play Ramos, i knew several months in advance.

 

As far as it encouraging variety, I don't think it will. It will encourage scouting, but 8 of 10 times I am willing to bet we will see the same masters getting banned.

 

The most negative play experience is working hard on something, getting to the table, and arbitrarily getting shut down, even if you have another option. A bad choice is still a choice.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Ummm bad example bringing up henchman hardcore, as everything you say is ok about it, IE banning something is ok because it's on the tin before you enter, is the same in this proposed format.

No one is proposing that a tournament be set up and then when people get there the ban rule is sprung on them out of nowhere as a sort of gotcha rule. The ban rule would be part of the rules pack and known about before you even enter.

I personally think its a little rich that there are people who embrace non-balanced formats like henchman hardcore, or enforcer brawls, all of which ban things more forcefully and extensively then this proposed format, and don't even have any argument as to doing so other than wacky format times, and yet some of those same people act like this is the worst idea ever.

It's just a proposed format with as much validity as any other. Like Joel's proposal of a format that allows a duel faction master access to being able to freely switch back and forth between their factions over the course of a tournament, or any of the other varient formats.

Should it become the defacto tournament format, most likely no, and Wyrd would most likely never officially say it will. Its overall success and use would be determined by how much people enjoy playing in it, and the amount of people who continually sign up for it.

As a voluntary tourney format it is no better or worse than any other single proposed format that differs from the norm than any I have heard of. If a tourney were held close enough to me where it was being utilized I'd compete in it at least once just to see what it's like.

[daniello_s]

IMO banning masters in Malifaux is a step too far. Next step would be banning certain models, because why not?

[AllistorPreist]

When i say sprung at the door, I don't mean the rule I mean the specific choice. I can prepare for henchman hardcore because everything is as on this tin. I know ahead of time that I cannot play Ramos in that format.

 

But let's say I decide to enroll and a Banhammer tournament. Let's say I got a favorite master in a faction, and let's say it is Tara. I read the rules so I pack say Von Shill and Hamelin. Sure, i won't get to play Tara every game, but if I get six games in I should be able to player her at least twice right?

 

But, let's say for a moment that the boards explode with some new Tara strat. Oh my gawd! Did you know if you play Tara with Nix tha she can,,,???!!!??? Or maybe the rumor gets out that I am crazy good with Tara (all lies I assure you). And I throw down at the table.

 

Game 1: I ban McMourning and my opponent bans Tara

Game 2: I ban Kaeris and my opponent bans Tara

Game 3: I ban the Dreamer my opponent bans Tara

Game 4: I ban Pandora my opponent bans... are you kidding me?

Game 5: I ban Yan Lo and, come on! just one game?

Game 6: I don't even care and my opponent bans Tara

 

Now maybe this won't happen to Tara, but Leveticus? Especially right after a cool new Levi friendly model comes out. It is more likely to create a NPE for almost anyone who has a favorite master. By comparison, Devide and conquer formats mean you will get at least one game with your favorite crew and, more importantly for the whole sportsmanship thing, it won't be your opponent telling you which models you are going to play with because when you get told for the 5th time that you can't play Lynch, who you just spend all summer painting, you aren't going to be angry with the TO. And being able to ruin the other guys day won't make me feel better, just meaner.

 

I haven't mentioned balance in my posts (at least I don't think I have) because that is not the biggest problem I see. Perception, NPE and investment are the problems I see.

[enderwiggin]

One master getting denied has already been stated to not be a NPE in discussions in the past tbh by the game creators and designers themselves. Mainly because not every master will be the best choice against the scenarios laid out so counting one out was not considered a NPE. If you are taking sub-par choices in game, then there's tons of game theory and articles about that, but making a worse choice is not cause to complain afterwards.

 

In your example, you're still stressing a hobbyist outlook vs. a competitive one.

 

In your example (looking at it from a tourney-player outlook) you're winning your games if you're going that many rounds for double eliminations, your opponents are running on bad information, and if you were only capable of winning with Tara then your opponents suck since they took her out of the equation and you stand a good chance of winning the whole shebang.

 

Now if you're running Swiss for the tournament, then I'd like to actually see hard data/scores and not emotion-driven theory since that swings either way.

[Guslado]

In general, I am against banning anything. Also the vast majority of tournaments happen at the local level, so chances are you are playing primarily against people you have played against before, thus the "name a faction and your opponent names the one master you can't use" could end up having the one master everyone in your communty knows is your favorite being axed each game quite probable.

I think the idea of doing a fix faction tourney where you can only ever use a master in one game during the tournament could be a cool way to get players to branch out and challenge themselves; downside is it would be tough for newer players to handle this. Perhaps not have it as a strict rule, but reward the players with some kind of special prize if they use a different master each round.

Ultimately, I think any kind of banning should only be used for special format kinds of events where the banning mechanics are part of the event.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Still don't agree. I think everyone who frequents the boards knows my favorite master is Seamus, and if I went to a tournament that was advertised as a ban master tournament (and let's not forget everyone who is saying this is a format that could be explored is not saying the ban rule should be anything other than announced before you even sign up) and my opponents banned me from seamus all day it would mean precisely nothing to me. I would come in knowing they could prevent me all day from using him, which still allows the use of molly, Kirai, Nicodem, tara, mcmorning, and Yan lo.

If I had just finished painting a new seamus crew and just had to show it off regardless of whether I would use it in the tourney or not Id create a display board bring it with, so it would still be shown off whether it was used in game or not.

To me it's just as valid a format as any other format available. If you don't like it, don't play, just like I would never take part in Joel's suggested format to allow dual faction masters access to either faction during the tournament. It doesn't mean there is no merit to his suggestion, just that I have no interest in taking part. Same situation here. If your enjoyment of the game can be spoiled because you might not be able to use a specific master in a specific event, which was advertised in advance as being a possibility, then I really don't think there is anything to be done, and we'll hopefully see you the next time round at a format you might like better.

There is nothing better or worse to this style of format than any other varient of the game that isn't vanilla MALIFAUX.

[Omenbringer]

Let's be honest, people who play only one master aren't exactly playing to win tournaments. Malifaux is just not a game where every master is a good choice for every board. I am actually in favor of fixed master tournaments for newer players, but I just like having new tournament types to play around with.

Definitely disagree with this. There are plenty of Masters that are competitive because they are extremely versatile in play style, able to reliably complete what ever Strat/ Scheme combo happens to pop up with minor addition/ subtraction of the rest of the crew and/or upgrades.

 

 

I disagree with you on this point. Changing the rules on models requires a huge investment on the part of Wyrd, and they have done a really good job, for the most part, of giving us a game without wildly swinging outliers that need to be reigned in.

With the introduction of Arsenal Decks it is not really a "huge investment" for Wyrd, any more so than creating an evolving, living Errata Document anyway. Additionally, there are plenty of outliers (in each faction) that deviate significantly from the norm (on both sides of the balance, so called "worthless" models and "auto-includes"). As more of the unreleased and wholly new crews filter into the competitive fields, more and more of them are going to pop up. As they do they will each need to be addressed and some may even need to be re-addressed. Those that are over powered will need to be reigned in (via errata or rules clarifications, which has already been done on several models) while those that are underpowered need to be boosted (perhaps via the 0 upgrade method that has already been introduced).

 

The biggest benefit to M2e over 1st ed is the ease with which problems, err...I mean "Issues" can be addressed by the company due to the Arsenal Decks and the Upgrade system. Hell they dont even need to reprint the whole deck, they can just release an "Errata" or "Update" Pack for sale periodically.

[Lucidicide]

Speaking as a player, I don't see the issue one way or another. I've skipped many events because I didn't want to play in that event and gone to other events because I did want to play that. Unless Wyrd makes this the only official format /shrug give it a try.

[The Zinc Lich]

@Allistorpriest: I don't mean this to be any way insulting, but have you considered that competitive tournaments just might not be your thing? There's nothing wrong with going into a game to show off your hobby skills, but if you can't derive any pleasure from playing Malifaux except with a single crew you have dynamically based, I don't see a point to paying an entrance fee for a tournament. Dynamic list selection is one of the defining features of Malifaux, and if you just don't want to do it, you are kind of playing with one hand tied behind your back.

 

Casual games allow you to play with more relaxed rules against people who are less focused on victory and therefore better able to appreciate what you are bringing to the table anyway. It isn't like tournaments are inherently superior to casual games. Its all Malifaux in the end.

 

Definitely disagree with this. There are plenty of Masters that are competitive because they are extremely versatile in play style, able to reliably complete what ever Strat/ Scheme combo happens to pop up with minor addition/ subtraction of the rest of the crew and/or upgrades.

 

With the introduction of Arsenal Decks it is not really a "huge investment" for Wyrd, any more so than creating an evolving, living Errata Document anyway. Additionally, there are plenty of outliers (in each faction) that deviate significantly from the norm (on both sides of the balance, so called "worthless" models and "auto-includes"). As more of the unreleased and wholly new crews filter into the competitive fields, more and more of them are going to pop up. As they do they will each need to be addressed and some may even need to be re-addressed. Those that are over powered will need to be reigned in (via errata or rules clarifications, which has already been done on several models) while those that are underpowered need to be boosted (perhaps via the 0 upgrade method that has already been introduced).

 

The biggest benefit to M2e over 1st ed is the ease with which problems, err...I mean "Issues" can be addressed by the company due to the Arsenal Decks and the Upgrade system. Hell they dont even need to reprint the whole deck, they can just release an "Errata" or "Update" Pack for sale periodically.

 

Every master has the ability to compete in every strategy, its true. That was one of the big revisions going from 1st edition to 2nd. However, there are precious few masters that are the *best* choice for every strategy. I mean, if you want to try and win a tournament on the back of one master, you're only going to be picking from a comparatively small pool of those that are at or above average. That's fine, but I like a little more variety in the games I play.

 

As to what Wyrd can or can't do for errata, that's for them to decide, and a little off topic. I will say, once again, that the idea behind a Banmaster (Banhammer? do we have an official name for this yet?) is not to wholesale remove overpowered masters, its to create an environment where masters that aren't used as frequently, either because of problematic matchups or because they are overshadowed by their more popular counterparts, get to see the table more often.

 

I'm glad I started the conversation with bans. I was thinking about Who's the Boss? tournaments a while ago, and that would make people's heads *explode*.

[Vidd]

In a game of Dota 2, you can ban 5 heroes you don't want to play against out of a pool of more than 100. When you pick 5 heroes out of the remaining pool for your whole team, they all have potentially equal significance. 

 

Banning a master in Malifaux is totally different experience since it's the lynchpin of your crew. It's also a totally different format - alternating picks and bans isn't the same as just banning and then picking in private with no intermediate stage.

 

I wouldn't be interested in attending such a format. Just my two cents.

[Omenbringer]

Every master has the ability to compete in every strategy, its true. That was one of the big revisions going from 1st edition to 2nd. However, there are precious few masters that are the *best* choice for every strategy. I mean, if you want to try and win a tournament on the back of one master, you're only going to be picking from a comparatively small pool of those that are at or above average. That's fine, but I like a little more variety in the games I play.

Again have to disagree, not every Master is (or was even meant to be) competitive in every Strat/ Scheme or even against certain crews (your opinion is that the divide has gotten better in this edition, mine is that it hasn't really changed), that is why you select Masters/Crews after the Strats/Schemes are determined.

 

You do emphasize my point though, the Masters/ Crews that are in the category of "competitive in most Strats/ Schemes" are going to be the ones that are generally run most often in tournaments and likely also placing in the top tiers. The biggest reason is that it allows the player to focus effort on learning that single crew rather than trying to split effort between a multitude of options. Better to focus effort on learning how your One Master will interact with the multitude of options your opponent may bring than trying to learn several potential Masters in the same circumstance.

 

 

As to what Wyrd can or can't do for errata, that's for them to decide, and a little off topic. I will say, once again, that the idea behind a Banmaster (Banhammer? do we have an official name for this yet?) is not to wholesale remove overpowered masters, its to create an environment where masters that aren't used as frequently, either because of problematic matchups or because they are overshadowed by their more popular counterparts, get to see the table more often.

    I'm glad I started the conversation with bans. I was thinking about Who's the Boss? tournaments a while ago, and that would make people's heads *explode*.

Agree it is a noble intention to try and encourage players to use less popular options however from what I have seen these types of things dont really accomplish that. The biggest reasons you even mention in the quoted section. They are not popular options precisely because they have "problematic match ups" and are "overshadowed" by better (read as more competitive) options. There isn't much that is going to incentivize players to take those models other than outright requiring their inclusion.

 

Not directed at you Zinc Lich but;

 

Another issue I have with this is that it creates a false pretense for competitive events. Players should expect to see tough competition and so called "cheese lists" at Tournaments (not at casual league or achievement type events). Tournaments are not for everyone and going in expecting to win with "funsy" lists instead of optimized builds is just creating a false pretense of what these events are and should be. "Bannings" like this also tend to create holes in players and communities experiences, especially for those that frequent the forums regularly (where they read about the current "Uber-broken" list). If you can ban tough match ups then you never have a reason to learn how to play against them. This also tends to allow overpowered models to fester longer than they should since there just isn't a lot of good data about them (since most people aren't seeing the potent combos due to avoidance).

 

This of course is only my opinion based on my experiences and no more correct or incorrect than any other. It is included simply to encourage the discussion in the hopes of creating better and more uniform events for the broader Malifaux community. Uniform, predictable events are how truly large communities are born.

[Tick-Tock Man]

As an alternative to the outright ban on certain masters, what if instead of the ban step there's a step where both players propose masters.  During this step each player says that they will play one of two masters, followed by list building as usual.  This would allow for people to be encouraged to run different lists, but allow them to use the shiny show pieces they've been working on.

 

Using the reconnoiter example(keeping in mind I don't really have any experience with or against arcanists), you would obviously put Ramos up as one of your masters, but maybe you put up Marcus as your other master.  Now you've put your opponent in a situation where they can build a list full of anti-Ramos tech at the risk of being at a disadvantage against beasts.

 

That being said, I don't think I'm much of a tournament guy so at the end of the day it's not going to come up much for me.

[Sketch201]

I don't think that implementing "bans" in the game is strictly neccesary and would overly penalize quite a few players in this game (those with only one or two masters).  The game is pretty well balanced as it is.   That being said, if everyone was on board with the idea and had large enough collections to support doing it, it might be fun for a one-off event.  I definiely wouldn't do it as the standard, though.  We don't need to drive new players away, and that's just what that would do.

[Gitli]

The idea of banning a master doesn't appeal to me. I only have 2 masters and that would leave really restrict me too much. Also, if I spent time and effort painting my models I'd be disappointed if I couldn't use them.

If there were events that ran with these rules then that would be cool but it would rule out any interest from me.

[Adran]

I'm going to preface this post with the statement that these are my experiences with the Malifaux community, they are highly subjective, and your mileage may vary.

 

Let's be honest, people who play only one master aren't exactly playing to win tournaments. Malifaux is just not a game where every master is a good choice for every board. I am actually in favor of fixed master tournaments for newer players, but I just like having new tournament types to play around with.

.

 

I don't find this to be true at all. I play with quite a few good players who will turn up to a fixed faction event, and only ever plan to use 1 master the entire day.

And they will often win, because they have worked out what they do for all situiations with that master.

 

And I find that to be a signifigant minority of the playing population. Yes, most of these do own more than 1 master in that faction, but often thats more to get the figures they want rather than them having an interest in that master.

[Cats Laughing]

To me it's just as valid a format as any other format available. If you don't like it, don't play, just like I would never take part in Joel's suggested format to allow dual faction masters access to either faction during the tournament. It doesn't mean there is no merit to his suggestion, just that I have no interest in taking part. Same situation here. If your enjoyment of the game can be spoiled because you might not be able to use a specific master in a specific event, which was advertised in advance as being a possibility, then I really don't think there is anything to be done, and we'll hopefully see you the next time round at a format you might like better.

 

While I agree with this idea from a logical standpoint, I can see one potential problem with it at a local level and the availability of alternatives.  As an example, my local meta is fairly small and tournaments are few and far between.  If I skip a tournament due to not liking the format, I may not get another chance to play at a tournament for another 3-6 months (or possibly longer, depending on circumstances).  Worse, if I as a TO, decide to use this format and my player base doesn't like it, there could be no tournament due to lack of participation and no chance for another for several months.  This is not to say that I think the tournament format being proposed is a bad idea.  My warning is more that a smaller meta will need to think about their player base and whether a non-standard format (especially one with a potentially NPE aspect) fits the meta.  It's perfectly fine to have formats that people may not want to participate in if there are other options for them (imho, this format would be perfect as one of many events at something like Adepticon), but it would be good if there is consideration of what other options exist when deciding to use such a format.

 

Personally I would have no problem playing in this kind of format, though I do see how it favors players with larger collections and more time to spread their practice between various masters, while hurting players with smaller collections and/or less time to practices with all of their options.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I mean no offense, honestly, but to me that is a very weak argument, and in fact aside from those who don't like the format based on ideological grounds, which is perfectly valid point of view, it's essentially the same argument against the format over and over.

You are assuming the TO is going to make a decision to run a tournament in an area without understanding his player base. The exact same argument against it could be made about running a story encounter tournament in meta that doesn't want such a thing.

The decision to run any particular format is not going to be made in a vacuum. No TO with any desire to actually have a well attended event is just going to arbitrarily decide to run any kind of event, or even an event, without making sure there is some desire in the community for such a thing.

Even basic gaining grounds events can fail if you try to run an organized play event in a community that only cares about casual play.

I mean the OP basically asked if this proposed style of format has a place in Malifaux, and from my perspective, this style has absolutely as much to offer as a henchman hardcore format, an enforcer brawl, a six shooter, a story event, or a doubles event. Absolutely none of those events displace regular malifaux or the official style of running a tournament. They are not displacing the de facto way to play the game. Nor has anyone ever argues for them to do so. Additionally not one of those events is a gotCha style event, where you don't find out about a particular rule until you show up. What they all are is a varient form of playing the game to keep it interesting, and every single one of them has as compelling a series of arguments against running them as a banmaster format does.

And in regards to the argument that if a format is run that you don't like, and that conceivably might cause you to not go to a tournament for a longer stretch of time than is normal, well that's true of any format. What if the local event is a doubles format and your group doesn't have enough players to let everyone local participate with a partner. What if the event is a henchman hardcore and you only own the Rasputina box. What if the event is a 50 SS event and several of your players don't have crews big enough for that? What if it's a story event and you group are all competitive players? I mean honesty if that portion of your argument holds any truth then no event would ever be run because any of them could fail and this cause no events for a extra long period of time. In every case it is up to the TO to determine if there is enough interest, first tht there is enough interest locally for any kind of event, and secondly for what kind of event to run.