Half way through the Year. Thoughts on the Game.

[Steven70]

Well 2017 is over 200 days old. Malifaux has come a long way since last year, let alone 2012 when I started playing. But as a veteran (and average) player, I do feel the game has moved into a different realm. So many new models, so many new interactions, so many interactions that need some clarifying or finalizing. The game is a business, I get that, I understand new content is important. But I have a huge model collection of several hundred models and I feel that often I am using only the same handful in each crew. Lately, I have been thinking I need 'new' models to keep up or catch up with new situations.

Has the game become optimized? Has the creative part of narrative selection been replaced with ultra effective crew selection and play to schemes at all costs? Are both players playing the same game with the myriad choices of crews, schemes, and when a wave model was released? Is there some understandable (and some not so) power creep and creative design element slowly working it's way into the scene?

I want to avoid a competitive v casual conversation. I think there is room and connection with both. I play to win, but I'm beer and pretzels...I want to have fun over winning against my friends. Are there elements to the game that have changed? What have you seen as a change or is now different? What would you like to see change again or change back? Has the modern business model appeared regardless of our hopes and fears that wave 5 minion/enforcer models will do things that wave 1 Henchmen had to use real resources to attempt.

2017 is speeding along, the game has new creations on the horizon. What do you see?  I really enjoy my game of Malifaux and I'm hoping to stir some creative, thoughtful, and engaging discussion from people who may have been playing a while or coming from other more overt and ruthless systems. I have always thought that Malifaux, unlike many other games, was alive as a living document in a way. It grows . Open to your Thoughts?

[-Loki-]

I think to an extent it is, but not as much as it appears when you read various 'competitive' people talking. What's happened, however, is there tends to be popular models in each ss bracket in each faction that are generally good, probably too good than they should be for their cost. As a Neverborn example, Illuminated. They're tough (Armour, Regeneration and Terrifying), hit hard at range and melee, (Ml 6 or Sh 5 with 2/4/5 damage tracks before Brilliance is considered) and have a built in self heal. That's amazing for a 7ss model. If you manage to get Brillance on the model and turn those damage tracks into 4/6/7 then... yeah. But it's not needed for them to be the best 7ss beater minion for Neverborn.

When the Autumn Knights stats came out, the general consensus was 'They're good for 7ss beater minions, but why would I use them over Illuminated?'. The Tooth has some real synergy with Rougarou/models with Pounce if you want a little pounce engine, The Thorn has good card draw potential, but unless you specifically want those things, the general consensus is to use Illuminated. Because Illuminated are just really, really good for 7ss, honestly better than they should be.

Really though, unless you're playing at the tippy top of your competitive meta, using Autumn Knights over Illuminated isn't going to be losing you games if you play them right. Personally, I use them because I don't have Illuminated, and it doesn't bother me a bit. It's just the online talk tends to gravitate to that kind of comparison. If you find yourself gravitating to the same old choices over and over, I'd just suggest forcing yourself out of your comfort zone. There's some fun combos to be had in models you don't use. And if you lose... it's only a game. Personally, I try to never use the same list twice, since I always want to try new things.

[Skylifter-1000]

I think there is a development cycle in every game where the economic necessity to produce new releases outgrows the game's internal usefulness of new models. This is not a big deal for games like 40K or AoS, where they can just create a new faction and it doesn't really impact the rest (except for their raging balance issues, but that is another matter). In those games, you get the casual/competitive discussion, which I think doesn't even work for Malifaux. 

But for games like Malifaux, Infinity or Warmachine/Hordes, which grow by adding new models to existing factions, this is a problem.

 

For WM/H, it is even worse, because you basically need to know every possible combo of every faction and every model by heart in order to not be noobstomped with a 30-inch-charge-casterkill on turn 2 (or by a stealth-ignoring, cover-ignoring mega-shooter-combo, or whatever). And with more and more new stuff, this grows increasingly more difficult, and it is already quite impossible for new players. The casterkill mechanic is really what makes this so much worse. It would still be bad without casterkill, but to a somewhat lesser effect. Also the turn system makes it worse. 

 

For Infinity, it actually works, because the game is not combo-dependent, with a few minor exceptions, and new models just do the same things in different ways - they do not fill new roles in the game, they just fill existing ones in different ways. Even then, some new releases make older releases just seem worse, but since the point system is more differentiated (300 points standard game size instead of 50), that can partially be corrected via points cost. So sometimes, you build a list and you would like to include a model for role X, and there always is the ideal model, but that might be too expensive, so you choose a less perfect fit, that will leave you more points for other roles. This way, even if a new model fulfills a role better than an existing one, the existing one still has uses, because it will probably cost less and thus still be included in your lists.

Also, in Infinity, tactical player skill is such a lot more important than model rules that as an experienced player I just wipe the table against a newbie with just a few months experience even if I build my list for being as weak as is possible with my models and I build his list to be the best it can. So overall, I can just pick what I like the looks of, and I'll still have a good list. 

 

Malifaux, from what I have experienced with the game so far, is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, like WM/H, it also has too little points differentiation and uses a lot of combos, but on the other hand, like in Infinity, new models just fill the same roles in new ways, and combos are not what dictates the games flow (while in WM/H, they definitely do). It also depends a lot more on tactical player skill than on list-building before the game, which is partially owed to the encounter system where you select the crew only after knowing the strategy and schemes and where killing your opponent's stuff is so much less important than the mission. What also helps is the activation method, because it means when you see a combo coming, you might still be able to do something about it during the game - something that is not possible in WM/H, where when you see it coming, you cannot activate anything before your opponent has completed it. 

When you read the master tiers thread, for example, to me it becomes pretty clear that the differences in "power" between even the masters are so minuscule, it doesn't really matter in a local group, where player skill will just be more important than any balance issue. So I tend to just bring the stuff I like. For example, I think Archie isn't particularly well-costed, but I still like to play him with Molly because it's just thematic. 

Overall, I wouldn't worry about the chance to just play whatever you like yet. Maybe this will become an actual problem in a few years time, but not yet. 

[Math Mathonwy]

1 hour ago, Skylifter-1000 said:

When you read the master tiers thread, for example, to me it becomes pretty clear that the differences in "power" between even the masters are so minuscule, it doesn't really matter in a local group, where player skill will just be more important than any balance issue. So I tend to just bring the stuff I like. For example, I think Archie isn't particularly well-costed, but I still like to play him with Molly because it's just thematic.

I kinda agree with this but I think that you're oversimplifying a bit. I mean, there's no one in my meta who I haven't lost to and who I haven't won if I have played more than four games against them. So even though skill does play a huge part it doesn't trump all. And if both players are at least somewhat on the same level skill-wise I do think that Brewmaster will lose quite a bit more often to Perdita or Kirai than the other way around.

There are no hopeless match-ups, true, but there are still tier differences and they are more pronounced than in Infinity.

I also think that adding more models to Malifaux isn't making it better but rather the opposite. I understand why they are being added and Malifaux won't be turning unplayable any time soon but I do think that they aren't adding to the game anymore.

As for power creep - well, the first book contained the most broken and the most useless stuff, in general. There was Francois and Francisco but also Oiran and Samurai (before the fixing Upgrades). So I'm not convinced that there is much in the way of power creep happening in Malifaux. In fact, I would argue that Wave 3 was the other way around with model ranging from "nice" to "not very good". A couple of the Emissaries are really powerful but otherwise there wasn't all that much there that you should be adding to your models if you're looking for THE ULTIMATE POWER.

[Myyrä]

31 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I kinda agree with this but I think that you're oversimplifying a bit. I mean, there's no one in my meta who I haven't lost to and who I haven't won if I have played more than four games against them. So even though skill does play a huge part it doesn't trump all. And if both players are at least somewhat on the same level skill-wise I do think that Brewmaster will lose quite a bit more often to Perdita or Kirai than the other way around.

I play in the same meta and there are people who I have never lost against even though we have played more than 4 games (a lot more in case of some). Also, no one can blame on focusing on specific masters too much. The difference in skill levels is a real thing. Although, I would also argue that there are differences in power levels of masters.

[Math Mathonwy]

11 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I play in the same meta and there are people who I have never lost against even though we have played more than 4 games (a lot more in case of some). Also, no one can blame on focusing on specific masters too much. The difference in skill levels is a real thing. Although, I would also argue that there are differences in power levels of masters.

Of course it is. And my win/loss record against certain players is certainly rather one-sided. I took exception against the claim that "the differences in "power" between even the masters are so minuscule, it doesn't really matter in a local group, where player skill will just be more important than any balance issue" where I agree that skill is more important but the power differences still matter. I have beaten your Colette with (pre-cuddle) Ophelia but I very much doubt I would've done so had I used Brewmaster with a Tri-Chi based crew.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Math Mathonwy said:

As for power creep - well, the first book contained the most broken and the most useless stuff, in general. There was Francois and Francisco but also Oiran and Samurai (before the fixing Upgrades). So I'm not convinced that there is much in the way of power creep happening in Malifaux. In fact, I would argue that Wave 3 was the other way around with model ranging from "nice" to "not very good". A couple of the Emissaries are really powerful but otherwise there wasn't all that much there that you should be adding to your models if you're looking for THE ULTIMATE POWER.

I feel like the first book included some of the most highly-focused models - Belles and Austringers, for example - that were perceived as "broken" due to their extreme stats in one particular strength... a perception that tended to ignore their mediocre to poor stats in other areas. Rather than there being a "power creep" trend per se (in the sense of model stats expanding through the top end), I'd say the trend has been one toward making all models (and particularly the new Masters) into highly competent generalists. I suspect the average stats for models have crept up a little over time (just compare Reporters or Akaname to the 4ss Minions from Wave 1!), but this is overwhelmed by the tendency toward the upper middle - rather than seeing models with eights and fours on the same card, we're getting more models with sixes and sevens across the board.

Wave 3 probably made the smallest splash and had the fewest "must-haves", but it was also a very small wave. It still has its standouts, too - the Carrion, Shadow and Brutal Emissaries are all game-changers for their respective Factions, sleeper hits like Big Jake and Master Queeg are starting to get the attention they deserve, and minions like the Mechanized Porkchop, Wind Gamin and Jorogumo have become staple choices for many crews. I suspect it just felt a lot more scattershot - Wave 1 was all over the place, while Wave 2 was generally very solid, so Wave 3 was a little more of a return to the form of some models being amazing and others being a bit trash. Wave 4 was again very solid... perhaps there's a Star-Trek-esque pattern emerging?

[Math Mathonwy]

47 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I feel like the first book included some of the most highly-focused models - Belles and Austringers, for example - that were perceived as "broken" due to their extreme stats in one particular strength... a perception that tended to ignore their mediocre to poor stats in other areas. Rather than there being a "power creep" trend per se (in the sense of model stats expanding through the top end), I'd say the trend has been one toward making all models (and particularly the new Masters) into highly competent generalists. I suspect the average stats for models have crept up a little over time (just compare Reporters or Akaname to the 4ss Minions from Wave 1!), but this is overwhelmed by the tendency toward the upper middle - rather than seeing models with eights and fours on the same card, we're getting more models with sixes and sevens across the board.

Well, to be fair Belles were weakened by errata and Austringers were also changed so I guess that they weren't just perceived as being broken but actually were above the curve.

Interestingly it looked to me that Wave 5 had lower stats again present in larger quantities. Or at least fives - in Waves three and four it seemed that six was just crazy common. Not all that many sevens, though, I don't think.

47 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Wave 3 probably made the smallest splash and had the fewest "must-haves", but it was also a very small wave. It still has its standouts, too - the Carrion, Shadow and Brutal Emissaries are all game-changers for their respective Factions, sleeper hits like Big Jake and Master Queeg are starting to get the attention they deserve, and minions like the Mechanized Porkchop, Wind Gamin and Jorogumo have become staple choices for many crews. I suspect it just felt a lot more scattershot - Wave 1 was all over the place, while Wave 2 was generally very solid, so Wave 3 was a little more of a return to the form of some models being amazing and others being a bit trash. Wave 4 was again very solid... perhaps there's a Star-Trek-esque pattern emerging?

Yeah, I think that those three Emissaries are the only ones from that wave which produced real waves. There's some solid choices there as well but they are mostly marginally better for some specific task than stuff from the previous waves so a pretty incremental change. I mean, Wind Gamins are pretty brilliant but Arcanists did have solid Scheme runners already so they mostly widen the spectrum rather than breaking new ground like much of the Wave 4 stuff did.

[Myyrä]

5 hours ago, Kadeton said:

I feel like the first book included some of the most highly-focused models - Belles and Austringers, for example - that were perceived as "broken" due to their extreme stats in one particular strength... a perception that tended to ignore their mediocre to poor stats in other areas.

I just can't let that claim stand uncontended. There is nothing below average about Belles, not even after the cuddle. Their durability is above average, their mobility is average, their ml is average and their Ca attacks are way above average.

[Skylifter-1000]

8 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Of course it is. And my win/loss record against certain players is certainly rather one-sided. I took exception against the claim that "the differences in "power" between even the masters are so minuscule, it doesn't really matter in a local group, where player skill will just be more important than any balance issue" where I agree that skill is more important but the power differences still matter. I have beaten your Colette with (pre-cuddle) Ophelia but I very much doubt I would've done so had I used Brewmaster with a Tri-Chi based crew.

 

I think this has to do with the size of our local groups. In my group, there are around 8 players currently who semi-regularly play. The number is rising, but slowly. And since most of us play maybe twice or thrice a month, the difference in player skill is just way more evident than it would be in a group with 20 players who all play two to three games per week and actually know all the masters from first-hand experience, whereas I have maybe seen a dozen masters on the table so far.

[4thstringer]

23 hours ago, Steven70 said:

 I have a huge model collection of several hundred models and I feel that often I am using only the same handful in each crew. Lately, I have been thinking I need 'new' models to keep up or catch up with new situations.

...

I want to avoid a competitive v casual conversation. I think there is room and connection with both. I play to win, but I'm beer and pretzels...I want to have fun over winning against my friends.

 

I can't speak towards the competitive meta, but I can't understand when people say that they are playing for fun but are discouraged about taking the same models every time.  Branch out a bit, try new things!!! You have such potential of things to try.  Get out of your list comfort zone a bit.

I worry that competitive meta, especially in my chosen faction (Guild) tends to stagnate a bit, but that is natural.  I don't think it is so bad that there isn't a ton of things out there to try.

[-Loki-]

14 hours ago, Skylifter-1000 said:

I think there is a development cycle in every game where the economic necessity to produce new releases outgrows the game's internal usefulness of new models. This is not a big deal for games like 40K or AoS, where they can just create a new faction and it doesn't really impact the rest (except for their raging balance issues, but that is another matter). In those games, you get the casual/competitive discussion, which I think doesn't even work for Malifaux. 

But for games like Malifaux, Infinity or Warmachine/Hordes, which grow by adding new models to existing factions, this is a problem.

While I have no inside information, I'd guess this is why they wanted to make Through the breach and now The other Side. By expanding the amount of games they support, they reduce the need to release a lot of new content for Malifaux just to keep the company propped up financially. It already seems to have started, now that releases are mostly caught up with the books after the massed releases in the core rulebook and Crossroads. After dropping to about half a dozen new units per book since book 3, releases have slowed down considerably. If you look at the new releases right now, they haven't exactly been packed every month. The last three months have been four kits a month, plus occasional TTB releases and extras like Fate decks and scenic bases. When The Other Side releases, we'll see releases for that game taking spots on the Upcoming releases page as well, getting more content out. 

The example of Infinity is a good one. Infinity is my other game, but lately the glut of units has started to bog the game down. There's just flat out too many units already, and we only have the first 2 books, with at least 2 more in the pipeline, each adding a new sectorial with even more units. If you play a generic army over a sectorial, choice paralysis is a real thing when there's multiple units that essentially do the same thing with only slight changes here and there. Corvus Belli desperately need another creative outlet. They've been doing a bit with that lately, their first manga, the RPG and their upcoming boardgame. During the development of the boardgame it seems they slowed down a bit on new models, with a few months having 1 less kit released. Plus their reliance lately on resculpting old models, which has slowed the avalanche of new rules.

[Kadeton]

13 hours ago, Myyrä said:

I just can't let that claim stand uncontended. There is nothing below average about Belles, not even after the cuddle. Their durability is above average, their mobility is average, their ml is average and their Ca attacks are way above average.

Haha, you do what you gotta do.

Belles have Df and Wp 4, and their Ml and Ca (discounting Lure as their extreme ability) are both 5. That would be a poor to middling spread for a 4ss minion, so for 5ss it's outright weak. 8 (or 7) Wds helps, but in my experience a Belle won't live as long as a Nurse (just for a comparably-priced alternative) against most models. They suffer the same curse as many "durable" Resser models: your opponent knows you'll have loads of Hard to Wound as soon as you declare the Faction, so they bring plenty of high-min-damage attacks which - against Df 4 - almost always connect.

I'm not saying Belles are or ever were weak, merely that they coupled unusually high stats to unusually low ones, which I feel doesn't happen as much any more.

17 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Well, to be fair Belles were weakened by errata and Austringers were also changed so I guess that they weren't just perceived as being broken but actually were above the curve.

Justin resisted making those changes for a really long time - there were calls for Belles to be nerfed right from Day One. They were eventually changed because that perception was causing negative play experiences, which is entirely fair, but the errata wasn't prompted by any emergent balance problems such as Resser dominance in the tournament scene.

17 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Interestingly it looked to me that Wave 5 had lower stats again present in larger quantities. Or at least fives - in Waves three and four it seemed that six was just crazy common. Not all that many sevens, though, I don't think.

Yeah, this prompted me to do a quick review and it's really all about the sixes. Pick a 7ss or greater model in Wave 4 at random, and it will usually be quicker - often much quicker - to list the offensive and defensive stats that aren't a six than the ones that are.