Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wobbly_goggy

Malifaux - what next?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Adran said:

I think Marcus with the Brass arachnid giving Howard 3 activation in a turn is a bad first turn. 

Double activating peacekeeper and second stompybot of choice seems much friendlier. ;)

6 hours ago, Reservoir Dog said:

...Henchmen/enforcers get master specific upgrades (e.g. barbaros has an upgrade he could only take if lilith was master etc). I think this would encourage more themed crews (which I like)....

Since this looks like it might break the ubiquity of Francisco and Francois and so on, it seems like a promising idea. The henchmen and enforcers would all have to have vital parts of their abilities and actions moved onto upgrades and lowered to 1 or 0ss for it to work, though. (How often is Carlos hired outside of Colette?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gnomezilla said:

Triple activating peacekeeper seems much friendlier. ;)

Since this looks like it might break the ubiquity of Francisco and Francois and so on, it seems like a promising idea. The henchmen and enforcers would all have to have vital parts of their abilities and actions moved onto upgrades and lowered to 1 or 0ss for it to work, though. (How often is Carlos hired outside of Colette?)

It may be friendlier, but its much harder to do (since Marcus is the only person I can think of who will let you get an activation out of a model without it being their activation so you can still get reactivate).

I was trying to stick to totems being picked in faction rather than Master specific. 

I like Carlos with Kaeris as well.

I don't think you will see them removing abilities to put them on upgrades in the near future, so it woul;d have to be more them gaining abilities (may be as simple as with Lady justice Fancisco could protect himself since she clearly doesn't need a big brother. But she does like +2 df)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also vote for the SS 50 --> 100. It is a major change allowing for balancing out models and justifies a new edition, but it doesn't change the rules, which are mostly working fine.

 

Then some revision of wordings and models, refreshing them and cleaning up the whole errata/0 upgrade fixes. 

I could also imagine some extra level added to the game, but who knows what that could be? 

 

But I guess for the time being, we will see a couple of alternative models first. Book 6 could be made up of story encounters with a few models thrown in (or not even); maybe some solo-missions. that would actually be very cool. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have to change the rules since 100 SS, even doubling costs of models would still most likely be leaving larger leftovers at the end so that a direct corralation between unspent SS to cache wouldn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think doubling points would do that much. There's always gonna be a model curve from good to bad. I don't think the balance between most models is truly significant and usually tiny changes like adding a suit or restricting an action to once per turn, is enough to balance models.

As for the really bad things, cheaper costs isn't going to help. Any stone upgrade could cost 0 and you still wouldn't take it on your master.

I've seen the "higher points leads to more granularity and thus better balance" several times before, and I'm still not convinced. And if it really was the case, why not cripple the value? Surely an even greater price range would allow for even better adjustment and balance. And suddenly we have 40k 3rd edition where you played 150p pts games with upgrades that cost 1 point.

Besides in malifaux increasing the price variation is going to lead to more pre game fiddling and longer list building time, which I'm not a fan of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about getting rid of jokers, folks? Has it been tested before, when M2E was in preparation? Personally, I really hate them. They add nothing positive to the game experience. If I get serious advantage by flipping red, I feel bad for my opponent. If flipping black screws my carefully executed plan, I start to believe that the gods hate me. Simultaneously, in long run jokers are irrelevant for player's win rate - good players still win more games than average and bad ones. What jokers add to the game is another layer of unpredictability. But if I am not alone in the feeling that they simultaneously diminish the enjoyment, why not get rid of them? Like suited schemes: cool idea, which eventually turned out to be bad for the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

What do you think about getting rid of jokers, folks? 

I think that Jokers do some really useful stuff that would make the game a fair amount shallower were they to be removed. The fact they can show up helps obfuscate the odds, and makes the value of :+fates and :-fates both harder to calculate, and substantially different from a simple + or -2. They make for some nice risk reward options, add some extra value judgements that I think are really interesting (hold onto or ditch the BJ?), and they are useful for more casual players as a balancing factor, making sure there's always a chance things can go right for you even if you are in a bad position. Plus thanks to the nature of the fate deck, they happen one a turn if at all, making them less obtrusive than some other crit systems which rely on dice.

My main argument here is I guess that some unpredictability is good and necessary for a deep and intetesting game. Once you remove too much of it, the game begins to stop being about seeing whose personal value judgements line up best with the game's, and more about who has calculated the optimal strategy more accurately.

 

And as you said, since they don't really affect a player's long term win rate there shouldn't be too much of a problem with swinginess. I think tournament concerns should really be directed against the best of 1 format that they are usually run with - it makes sense due to time constraints but I think for good consistent results,  best of 3 or even 5 is necessary.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd honestly love getting rid of Jokers. You can play and plan around them being in your deck but you still have zero control over where they are unless you luck out and get them in your hand and their trumping all other modifiers makes them favour chance and flashiness over skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself, I feel that the Jokers have an important role to play in limiting the power level of the top combinations and models. As it is, the game has an increasing problem with the amount of combinations that can be summarised as 'go anywhere, then kill anything' and about the only thing keeping them a little bit under control is that a joker flip against the key model, still very unlikely, can limit things. Similarly, it keeps the tougher models from being quite untouchable, because there's always a slight risk an attack might get past their high defence and hand full of big cards, or flip the red joker from damage. If anything, I'd like to see some check on being able to keep the black joker in hand to stop it ever coming up, but I accept this would be very hard to implement. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing with the BJ in hand all game limits your hand though, so I never do that.

Removing the jokers is a terrible idea, as it removes some of the randomness of the game and the fun. Some of the best moments in Malifaux are the ones where a Black Joker screws you over in a pivotal moment and vice versa; the red joker saves the day. 

There's got to be some flavour and risk in a game such as this, or it'll become dull.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upcoming Encounter boxes is another 'What's next', and it would be very nice if there were new story encounters in there.(Still hoping for a story encounter book with solo encounters/campaign)

 

Maybe the box will be about Nicodem and Lady J and inlude alternative models (though unlikely, as Nicodem already got one) but after having read the latest Chronicles...

 

Spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

The Judge might need an alternative model. 

Also, I'd find it a bit weird to play a master that is already dead in the storyline. The alternative versions of them are still perfectly fine - a nice way of forwarding the plot and even being able to kill of main characters while still have a version of the same master in play. 

 

Now, every master with an alternative sculpt should be nervous ...:-P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 8:21 PM, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

What do you think about getting rid of jokers, folks? Has it been tested before, when M2E was in preparation? Personally, I really hate them. They add nothing positive to the game experience. If I get serious advantage by flipping red, I feel bad for my opponent. If flipping black screws my carefully executed plan, I start to believe that the gods hate me. Simultaneously, in long run jokers are irrelevant for player's win rate - good players still win more games than average and bad ones. What jokers add to the game is another layer of unpredictability. But if I am not alone in the feeling that they simultaneously diminish the enjoyment, why not get rid of them? Like suited schemes: cool idea, which eventually turned out to be bad for the game

I would tone down red joker on damage for sure. In such a agressive enviroment flipping RJ to damage can end games in turn one. I can live with BJ as it is but how RJ blows things up when having negative flips to damage I dont like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rise in the amount of min 3 damage tracks has definitely amped up the red jokers damage potential. Though that's more an issue with so many min 3 tracks than the red joker mechanic itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malifaux's main gimmick is "Bad Things Happen."  Why would you want to take out the main thing that makes this true?  As someone who's been playing this game for the past 4-ish years, I think it's hilarious when it happens both for and against me.  It makes it so that it's not just a pure game of statistics.  There's always a chance that your best laid plans get screwed over by luck.  The cards have to fall almost perfectly in a 54 card deck for you to get that huge damage or fail that critical flip.  I've had games where both jokers barely affected the outcome of the game but there have been others where I felt like I flipped the Black Joker at least 8 times.  It's honestly a part of the game that I would hate to see gone and I know there are other's who think the same.  Hopefully the developers would never think of taking this mechanic out of the game. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -Loki- said:

The rise in the amount of min 3 damage tracks has definitely amped up the red jokers damage potential. Though that's more an issue with so many min 3 tracks than the red joker mechanic itself.

What upsets me is taking it no matter negative flips. Dealing severe and weak in one blow mean not only more damage but also armour and prevention are less effective than receiving the same amount in two blows. Its painful to strugle not to lose your master to a single alpha cerberus or vick burning high cards and stones to give negative flips to survive one more turn and getting utterly red jokered. Maybe if red joker when flipped allowed an additional damage flip with the same modiffiers or it only made severe I would be more content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎.‎12‎.‎2017 at 7:06 PM, Adran said:

It may be friendlier, but its much harder to do (since Marcus is the only person I can think of who will let you get an activation out of a model without it being their activation so you can still get reactivate).

Don't have the cards on hand but can't Tara do it as well? She just very rarely does.

40 minutes ago, Sybaris said:

Has there been any official discussion of M3 or is this more or less speculation/brainstorming. Is this edition in such need of a clean up already?

Nothing official that I know of. But it seems unlikely that Malifaux could get a new book every Gencon forever so a new edition is likely to hit somewhere along the line. Now, whether that is 2018, 2019, or 2020 is up for speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Joker conversation is funny in that in M1.5 a Red Joker on Damage was Severe and another unmodified flip (so you could get double Severe). There were giant threads about it and toning it down to its current version was seen by many as getting rid of all that was fun in Malifaux and Bad Things could no longer happen and the end of the world :P 

I do agree that Jokers serve an important function. I wouldn't be averse to toning it down a tiny bit on damage (making it just do Severe or Severe+1) but I won't be sad if it isn't changed, either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Don't have the cards on hand but can't Tara do it as well? She just very rarely does.

Nothing official that I know of. But it seems unlikely that Malifaux could get a new book every Gencon forever so a new edition is likely to hit somewhere along the line. Now, whether that is 2018, 2019, or 2020 is up for speculation.

I agree M3E is on it's way, mainly because I'm not sure how many more books can be brought out at gencon without the game feeling bloated.

Suggestions that i've seen include

*a book with upgrades for henchmen and enforcers - this would be very cool, but I don't know how many models sales it'll lead to.

*a new faction - not going to be everyones cup of tea, but would provide for a new book.

*M2.5E - upgrading all the rules and abilities that need a tweek without redoing everything.

 

This year we have the release of ToS, so I don't really see wyrd taking the risk of a M3E/having the time to create a new version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/12/2017 at 1:57 PM, Math Mathonwy said:

Don't have the cards on hand but can't Tara do it as well? She just very rarely does.

Doesn't she only "activate" enemy models when she unburies them...  I guess she could do that twice in a turn and it could still activate ( and re-activate) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/12/2017 at 6:13 AM, Gnomezilla said:

Jokers in. A game without risk is just a spreadsheet.

I like Mfx because random factor is somewhat reduced by replacing dice with cards,cheating fate options, makes planning/tactics/etc. more important. Pushing it slightly toward such game as chess. Is chess a spreadsheet?

Still, jokers are integral part of traditional card deck, they should stay, present rules for them are acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO main thing which should be done is balancing somehow models which don’t stand a chance currently against ‘most obvious choices’ in the faction and sorting out vantage point rule because this rule is so crazy and difficult to use many players literally hate it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...