3 ED scenerio generation is terrible

[spellfax]

I have about 40 models.  I have tried 1st edition, terrible balance issues.  2nd Edition was pretty bad but better and more balanced.  3rd edition.  I did not read any of the rules.  I went straight to how to generate a fight.  The concept of how you square off to fight is absolutely terrible.   

[dannydb]

can you expand on your reasons for disliking it? 

[spellfax]

I play a lot of other miniature war games (Infinity, KoW, LADG, Bolt action, Gaslands) .   Most of those games, you can agree to a scenerio before meeting.  Additionally, if you wanted to play a specific set of models/theme/tactic/style you can choose a battle format that accommodates.  You can then build a list tailored to what you want to field and how you want to battle.  Then when you meet you can immediately start playing the game.  With Malifaux, you cannot do this.  You have to bring all your figures.  Meet your opponent. Then simultaneously reveal your faction?  Then determine how you will fight and why you are fighting.  Then build lists.   Often times you cannot play a specific style/leader because of the opposing faction or because of the scheme/strategy type.  

I remember wanting to play Rasputina (slow moving ranged combat).  But then drew strategy/scheme were she had no chance to win because of lack of mobility.  I had to play a faster crew.  

Or the reverse, wanting to play a fast caster good at getting around and accomplishing objectives, then a strategy/scheme pops up forcing brawl/kill scenario.

The schemes are so aggravating.  Some are non confrontational.  Some force you to see the other persons cards so you can figure out targets.   Alot of them are "secretly pick".  More trash. 

Games should be easy to setup.  Easy like, lets play malifaux, choose a scenerio.  See you saturday.  Play.

 

[spellfax]

Addtionally, it forces you to have 2-3 crews ready to play.   1 for combat, 1 for speed, 1 for capture the flag ie Corrupted idols?

if you have 1 crew and draw the strategy that it has trouble doing, you are just forced suck or buy more models that you may or may not like

[spellfax]

the fact that this exists 

Encounter Set Up

A. Determine Encounter Size

B. Place and Define Terrain

C. Determine Scenario

D. Generate Schemes

E. Choose Faction and Leader

F. Hire Crew

G. Reveal Crews

H. Choose Schemes

I. Deployment

J. Start of Game

[spellfax]

maybe i am being too hasty?  maybe i need to go see if the crews are more than Rock, Paper, Scissor, Spock.

[solkan]

16 minutes ago, spellfax said:

Addtionally, it forces you to have 2-3 crews ready to play.   1 for combat, 1 for speed, 1 for capture the flag ie Corrupted idols?

You are expected to make choices to tailor your crew to the missions.  That is why the steps exist in the order that they do.

I’m a bit confused why you’d complain about this order, because in other game systems the process would be:

1.  Build a crew that’s either tailored to specific missions or a less effective generalists

2.  Hope that you get lucky and the mission generation favors you

 

Quote

if you have 1 crew and draw the strategy that it has trouble doing, you are just forced suck or buy more models that you may or may not like

No one is forcing you to buy models that you don’t like.  You are, however, expected to choose among the models that you do like and find models that will serve in each case.

Does that mean that you need a model pool larger than the models necessary for exactly one creｗ?  Yeah, it does.  That’s going to be the case for any game with a mission pool, though.  The only difference here is that you have to bring all of your models with.

And, for the record, this sequence is pretty much how the game has worked since 1st edition.

Or are you complaining that 3rd edition’s design goal of getting rid of 2nd edition’s “This is your faction’s best scheme runner, you can ignore every other alternative”?  

[spellfax]

10 minutes ago, solkan said:

You are expected to make choices to tailor your crew to the missions.  That is why the steps exist in the order that they do.

I’m a bit confused why you’d complain about this order, because in other game systems the process would be:

1.  Build a crew that’s either tailored to specific missions or a less effective generalists

2.  Hope that you get lucky and the mission generation favors you

In the games listed, My meta,  we choose the mission during the week, spend time at home generate armies then meet and play.

[spellfax]

14 minutes ago, solkan said:

And, for the record, this sequence is pretty much how the game has worked since 1st edition.

Agreed and that is why our group has never played past 2-3 games in each edition before switching to other games.

AND, it makes it very hard to introduce the game to new people. 

[Kadeton]

It's certainly not a game that lends itself to "I want to play this specific crew, what objectives can we play that will help it work?" The whole approach is the other way around: This is your mission, who are you going to choose to fulfil it?

That said, there's nothing stopping you from arranging everything in advance, surely? Just have a conversation where you agree on encounter size, scenario and schemes, reveal your chosen factions and leaders, hire and reveal your crews, and secretly select your schemes. Then when you actually get to the table, you can place the terrain (this is the only thing that will happen out of sequence), deploy, and go.

So far, I haven't found the gap between crews to be win-or-lose based on the scenario. Slower ranged crews might not get to the objectives as quickly, but they can more easily kill the enemy models who do, for example. (Also, the December theme has Ice Dancers who are more than fast enough for scheme running, Acolytes who deploy up the board, and Snow Storm who can boost friendly movement. A Rasputina crew can definitely get wherever they need to be.)

[spellfax]

5 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

It's certainly not a game that lends itself to "I want to play this specific crew, what objectives can we play that will help it work?" The whole approach is the other way around: This is your mission, who are you going to choose to fulfil it?

That said, there's nothing stopping you from arranging everything in advance, surely? Just have a conversation where you agree on encounter size, scenario and schemes, reveal your chosen factions and leaders, hire and reveal your crews, and secretly select your schemes. Then when you actually get to the table, you can place the terrain (this is the only thing that will happen out of sequence), deploy, and go.

So far, I haven't found the gap between crews to be win-or-lose. Slower ranged crews might not get to the objectives as quickly, but they can kill the enemy models who do, for example. (Also, the December theme has Ice Dancers who are more than fast enough for scheme running, Acolytes who deploy up the board, and Snow Storm who can boost friendly movement. A Rasputina crew can definitely get wherever they need to be.)

thank you for the boost of confidence in the crews not being rock, paper, scissor, spockish. 

I have all those models but they never compared to the base speed of colette, marcus.   But i will look at it closer.   I will read more into the edition.  

*i mean i don't have the Dancers.  

i was hoping that 3ed would of let go of the old way of forming battles and streamline it. 

[solkan]

 

3 minutes ago, spellfax said:

In the games listed, My meta,  we choose the mission during the week, spend time at home generate armies then meet and play.

I hope in this case that you adjust your practices to:

1.  Decide on the table layout (and deployment) in advance as well.

2.  Declare faction and leader to each other before generating armies.

The point of the process is that you don’t have to be stuck with bad choices for the match up.  (Or at least, you’re choosing your best options given the leader you committed to.)

 

[spellfax]

10 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

It's certainly not a game that lends itself to "I want to play this specific crew, what objectives can we play that will help it work?" The whole approach is the other way around: This is your mission, who are you going to choose to fulfil it?

 

We play Infinity a lot.   Genrally when you make a list, you just swap out 1-2 lesser models not the entire team.

i will look further into the game.  

[solkan]

1 minute ago, spellfax said:

We play Infinity a lot.   Genrally when you make a list, you just swap out 1-2 lesser models not the entire team.

Glass houses.  🤐  

If all of the missions in Infinity can be accomplished by essentially the same forces, what’s the point of having scenarios?  And what’s the point of having a wide variety of models in a faction if you can just ignore most of them?

[LeperColony]

9 minutes ago, solkan said:

Glass houses.  🤐  

If all of the missions in Infinity can be accomplished by essentially the same forces, what’s the point of having scenarios?  And what’s the point of having a wide variety of models in a faction if you can just ignore most of them?

Interestingly, in most of the local metas I've been in, players did tend to ignore most of them in favor of a few select masters and a pretty consistent build for each.

[spellfax]

9 minutes ago, solkan said:

Glass houses.  🤐  

If all of the missions in Infinity can be accomplished by essentially the same forces, what’s the point of having scenarios?  And what’s the point of having a wide variety of models in a faction if you can just ignore most of them?

Aesthetics. 

[Tors]

36 minutes ago, solkan said:

Glass houses.  🤐  

If all of the missions in Infinity can be accomplished by essentially the same forces, what’s the point of having scenarios?  And what’s the point of having a wide variety of models in a faction if you can just ignore most of them?

Infinity didn't employ this concept either. You can't do well in every Mission with only swapping 2 Models.

[Nikodemus]

2 hours ago, spellfax said:

In the games listed, My meta,  we choose the mission during the week, spend time at home generate armies then meet and play.

That's how I play most of my Malifaux. Mostly random mission rather than picking something specific, but it happens too.

• "Anyone up for a game next friday?"
• "Sure."
• "[strats & schemes]"
• "ok, I declare X"
• "I declare Y"
• "See you friday"

 

[Adran]

What you and your group like, is going to be personal. I think the encounter generating system is one of the two best things about Malifaux. (the other is using cards as the random number generator, and so the ability to have control hands).

I really enjoy the fact I customise my list to do the specific job required. I like that I want to own more models, and that its not going to be the case that I will only want to use the newest toy, and my old purchases never see the light of day.

That said, I think you are doing Malifaux a disservice. I don't play all the games you listed, but I do play some of them and plenty of other games, and know that if you are playing scenario games you need to either build for that scenario or build a generalist list. Certainly all the war games I have played you have a chance to lose in your list building, so Malifaux isn't unique in that aspect. If you build a Rutherford combat truck, and your 3 opponents all build racing teams you have very little chance to win a death race, but you would probably beat those teams in an areana of death. (That said I try and build my gaslands teams to be able to compete in all games).

 

It is perfectly possible to build a generalist Malifaux list. There are countless examples of people winning major tournaments using just the one list, or only superficial changes in both the first 2 editions. I will agree that it is possible to build a bad list for all scenarios as well.

Rasputina was a very slow master. That didn't stop you building a fast Rasputina list in the last 2 editions. I remember a first ed game I played where I scored Breakthrough with my Ice Golem in turn 3, after it killed Sommer in the middle of the table turn 2.  Yes, I made sure I had hired snow storm, who really ramped up the mobility of the otherwise slow crew. But that's the beauty. You can get any master the tools to at least compete in any mission.  It might not be their best but they can at least make a game of it. Yes, you may well want to buy more than 1 crews worth of models to actually give yourself the best shot of winning. But you don't need to have that large a collection to be competitive in any combination of strategy and schemes. You might need to own 20 or so models and only field 8 at a time, but you will make use of almost all 20 of those models in some combination or another.

And lots of people will generate Strats and Schemes earlier in the week and show up with lists to do that encounter. Which does sound like what you do for other games. I Certainly remember WFB when they put scenarios into the game we often had people refuse to play them because they were auto lose for their lists, either because they didn't have a unit that could hold the tower, or they didn't buy standards for their unit. To, me, that was the point of the scenarios, you have to not just play the same game but actually think and change things.

4 hours ago, spellfax said:

The schemes are so aggravating.  Some are non confrontational.  Some force you to see the other persons cards so you can figure out targets.   Alot of them are "secretly pick".  More trash. 

Games should be easy to setup.  Easy like, lets play malifaux, choose a scenerio.  See you saturday.  Play.

 

I honestly think that if you want to, Malifaux can be a "Lets play malifaux, flip 7 cards, there we go, that's the scenario and the deployment". You can then wander off to make your list and meet up again Saturday.  (I would suggest in 3e that you do tell each other factions and Leaders at some point, but if you both want to build blind, you can. It does remove a little of the rock, paper, scissors, options that are there, which were designed to be balancing but its not essential for the game to work).

You can Make a Colette list that is a threat in Reckoning, or a rasputina list that can do cursed idols. I always look at the schemes and if there are any that depend on my opponents list that I think I might want to do, I try and also make sure I have a plan for a third scheme so the fact I think I am going to struggle assassinating their leade rwhen I discover who it is for example,  I have a fall back plan.

But there is also nothing to stop you "fixing" the game choices if you really want to try something out and your opponent is happy with that.

 

If all your play group follow the same sort of guide lines I don't see Malifaux being a problematic game. If you all have similar sized collections, then you have similar choices to make. You may not like the game, but your objections to the encounter system are things that I think most play groups are happy to adapt to match their style.

I hope you can find a way that you enjoy the game.

[dannydb]

The thing is you seem to be complaining about one of the main tentents that make malifaux well malifaux. The fact you can't just make one list to suit 90‰ of games is its big selling point other than the card mechanic. 

 

I'n addition there is no reason why you can't work out strats and scheams prior to the game, a lot of torderment do this weeks before the event with 0 issues 

[Shadowopal]

You can always both flip the cards for strat and scheme and take a photo to send to your opponent and declare factions via email. That's what we have done since the start. There will still be terrain to sort out that may affect your crew choice. But you can narrow you models down a lot. Setup is quick and honestly even if designing crews at the game it doesn't take long. It's 10-15 models and 1 minute of card flips. 

[Paddywhack]

12 hours ago, Nikodemus said:

That's how I play most of my Malifaux. Mostly random mission rather than picking something specific, but it happens too.

• "Anyone up for a game next friday?"
• "Sure."
• "[strats & schemes]"
• "ok, I declare X"
• "I declare Y"
• "See you friday"

Yep! We determine Strat and Schemes before hand then declare our Faction and master and meet up later in the week. It still lets me think about things and you don't have to pick your schemes until 'after' you see the enemy crew, so you still have some thinking to do before the game. Choosing crews after strats and schemes and knowing what your opponent is taking (at least faction and leader) is a major selling point for Malifaux. 

Even in tourney play you usually get the Strat and Deployment ahead of time. Some also give the schemes ahead of time, but some don't  till day of so you have to be creative and think of alternates for your crew.

There is literally nothing stopping you from doing some steps ahead of time. We usually do this ahead of time:

• A. Determine Encounter Size
• C. Determine Scenario
• D. Generate Schemes
• E. Choose Faction and Leader

And then we do these steps day of game:

• B. Place and Define Terrain
• F. Hire Crew
• G. Reveal Crews
• H. Choose Schemes
• I. Deployment
• J. Start of Game

There is some disadvantage as you don't see the board until after you've thought about your list, but I usually plan some swaps if I see a lot of certain terrain. But in any tourney game you usually don't get to see the board layout ahead of time. And in Malifaux you are tied to the crew list like some other systems. 

[spellfax]

12 hours ago, Adran said:

If you build a Rutherford combat truck, and your 3 opponents all build racing teams you have very little chance to win a death race, but you would probably beat those teams in an areana of death. (That said I try and build my gaslands teams to be able to compete in all games)

We have 1 player that plays Rutherford and we run into this all the time.

When he plays we dont do death race.

You brought up WFB and watch tower.  Thar was a breaking point for my Bretonians.

Those are great examples and that is why knowing the exact scenerio ahead of time is good.

 

Minimize bad match ups.

[spellfax]

1 hour ago, Paddywhack said:

There is literally nothing stopping you from doing some steps ahead of time. We usually do this ahead of time:

• A. Determine Encounter Size
• C. Determine Scenario
• D. Generate Schemes
• E. Choose Faction and Leader

And then we do these steps day of game:

• B. Place and Define Terrain
• F. Hire Crew
• G. Reveal Crews
• H. Choose Schemes
• I. Deployment
• J. Start of Game

This sounds good!

We may even choose 1 of the 4.

Thanks for sharing.

Going to try this 

[Bengt]

Wasn't there a webpage or twitterbot or something that generated strat & schemes? Is that still around and updated for M3E? You can also decide to play a story encounter in advance.