Gaining grounds wish list

[Morgan Vening]

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

I don't think the Walk tax is as bad as all that.

Can you define this please? It's a phrase I'm unfamiliar with.

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

Can you define this please? It's a phrase I'm unfamiliar with.

Let's say you need to walk 4 times and interact twice.

Two cheap models can walk 4 times and interact once each interact for two total.

Or one expensive model can walk 4 times and interact twice. And is more likely to survive the journey.

Now of course if the two places you need to interact are spread out, it changes it somewhat, but often expensive models are more mobile.

So 'cheap models have more ap' doesn't really add up as well when you have to account for the walking across the board. Or to put it another way:

To get to a location...

• A 10 stone minion can walk 4 times to get to that location and have 10 stones of models there.
• Or two 5 stone minions can walk 4 times each (8 total) to get to that location and have 10 stones of models there. They have double the AP but it takes twice as many walks to get them to the target.

So the 'more ap' advantage of cheaper models doesn't always work out unless you have to be in multiple locations at once.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, but I'm not sure there are many hypothetical schemes that:

• Are scorable by small models
• Are not scorable by big models
• Are not optimised by just ignoring it and focusing on killing.
• Involve running around dropping scheme markers.

 

Apart from the fact I wouldn't include "aren't scorable by big models", I would say that there are plenty of hypothetical schemes that do the other 3.  One of the reasons Outflank as a scheme is so tough to score is that in this edition you often can't afford to sit big models out on the flanks to score it. They can score it, but the game cost to achieve it is very rarely worth the reward. 

In earlier editions it would have been the case that you could score outflank with a couple of cheap models in turns 2-4, and they could still be doing something else to score in turn 5. It is also the case that they would have scored 30% of the available points, rather than 25% (schemes used to be up to 3 points each), so it was easier in terms of it was easier to keep the models alive, you didn't have to keep the models alive as long, you didn't have to telegraph exactly where they would need to be at a set point of the game, and it was worth more points. 

13 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Then they REALLY better make both points scorable before endgame because the idea that a 4-5 stone model lives through round 5 is laughable - you'd basically have to table your opponent to guarantee that and if you table your opponent then everything else is pretty academic. 

This is a very good point, and something that is often not remembered. Due to the fact you have 3 points in the game that you score at the end of turn 5, it is much harder to be able to set up all those points and keep them safe if you aren't alive. In the last two editions I had several games where I lost my entire crew yet still won. But most of the time that last turn had only been 1 or 2 points out of my maximum 10 on the line for me.   I've not played as many M3 games, but none have come close to that. It is a much less likely outcome. (I think I would need to be crushing the opponent  by turn 4 in score terms, to let them have a whole turn on me and them still not catch up). It also isn't helped by the fact that in this edition every strategy point is harder to score than the last one, so even if you are at 3 strategy points to 1 at the end of turn 4, the likelyhood is that the second point for your opponent is much easier to score (and harder to deny) than the 4th point for you. 

There needs a much bigger overhaul of the scoring to encourage cheaper models enough to make up for the losses they suffered this edition if you were only going to do it via gaining grounds. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Adran said:

Apart from the fact I wouldn't include "aren't scorable by big models", I would say that there are plenty of hypothetical schemes that do the other 3.

That's the biggest one, though xD

If the scheme can be scored by big models, then people are incentivised to hire them over small models this edition (for most crews).

[DuBlanck]

Is there a specific reason Public Demonstration was dropped, other than not fitting the Reveal/End paradigm?

Start: Pick 3 Minion models, total cost >15ss.

Reveal: Have 3 Minions all within 4"(?) of enemy Henchmen/Masters.

End: Have at least one of those same Minions within 6" of the centre.

 

Originally, it was "select 3 Minions >15ss, at Reveal, score 1VP per Minion within 4" & LoS of Master/Hench/Enforcer".

I liked it for dictating crew builds and an awareness of board position. If you are running it, you want a balance between plentiful models to score it with, while keeping them survivable and actually useful for something other than holding picket signs. If you weren't picking it, you needed to bring Minions to front it. If you were playing against it, you didn't want to load super-elite because it provides additional places to concede those VP.

I also liked it for explicitly requiring Minions, rather than just the Stone cost that Martyrs calls for. It is a clumsy blunt force way of getting Minions in, but it would work.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I agree. I'd like to see more minion only schemes (although that just means more crooligans. It won't fix rabble risers for example xD)

[Maniacal_cackle]

30 minutes ago, DuBlanck said:

Is there a specific reason Public Demonstration was dropped, other than not fitting the Reveal/End paradigm?

Start: Pick 3 Minion models, total cost >15ss.

Reveal: Have 3 Minions all within 4"(?) of enemy Henchmen/Masters.

End: Have at least one of those same Minions within 6" of the centre.

 

Originally, it was "select 3 Minions >15ss, at Reveal, score 1VP per Minion within 4" & LoS of Master/Hench/Enforcer".

I liked it for dictating crew builds and an awareness of board position. If you are running it, you want a balance between plentiful models to score it with, while keeping them survivable and actually useful for something other than holding picket signs. If you weren't picking it, you needed to bring Minions to front it. If you were playing against it, you didn't want to load super-elite because it provides additional places to concede those VP.

I also liked it for explicitly requiring Minions, rather than just the Stone cost that Martyrs calls for. It is a clumsy blunt force way of getting Minions in, but it would work.

Actually even just "have three minions near enemy non minions" would provide some really interesting choices.

The danger of having to choose minions is they may die, but if you can use any of the ones you hired that changes it.

[Morgan Vening]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Actually even just "have three minions near enemy non minions" would provide some really interesting choices.

The danger of having to choose minions is they may die, but if you can use any of the ones you hired that changes it.

One of the problems there is the massive variation in "minions". If I'm using Mature Nephilims  and you're using Desperate Mercs, I think I have a pretty decent advantage. It's the same issue with Upgrades.

I'd rather they used Enforcer X to indicate a difference in what counts as a minion, and what doesn't. But we're well past that point now.

[admiralvorkraft]

4 hours ago, Adran said:

Apart from the fact I wouldn't include "aren't scorable by big models", I would say that there are plenty of hypothetical schemes that do the other 3.  One of the reasons Outflank as a scheme is so tough to score is that in this edition you often can't afford to sit big models out on the flanks to score it. They can score it, but the game cost to achieve it is very rarely worth the reward. 

In earlier editions it would have been the case that you could score outflank with a couple of cheap models in turns 2-4, and they could still be doing something else to score in turn 5. It is also the case that they would have scored 30% of the available points, rather than 25% (schemes used to be up to 3 points each), so it was easier in terms of it was easier to keep the models alive, you didn't have to keep the models alive as long, you didn't have to telegraph exactly where they would need to be at a set point of the game, and it was worth more points. 

This is a very good point, and something that is often not remembered. Due to the fact you have 3 points in the game that you score at the end of turn 5, it is much harder to be able to set up all those points and keep them safe if you aren't alive. In the last two editions I had several games where I lost my entire crew yet still won. But most of the time that last turn had only been 1 or 2 points out of my maximum 10 on the line for me.   I've not played as many M3 games, but none have come close to that. It is a much less likely outcome. (I think I would need to be crushing the opponent  by turn 4 in score terms, to let them have a whole turn on me and them still not catch up). It also isn't helped by the fact that in this edition every strategy point is harder to score than the last one, so even if you are at 3 strategy points to 1 at the end of turn 4, the likelyhood is that the second point for your opponent is much easier to score (and harder to deny) than the 4th point for you. 

There needs a much bigger overhaul of the scoring to encourage cheaper models enough to make up for the losses they suffered this edition if you were only going to do it via gaining grounds. 

My best (read most fun for me) game of 3e I was tabled save for Yan Lo, my opponent had their whole crew left, and I was able to force a 5-5 tie. Otherwise games are decided by turn 3 and you're playing for diff. Which makes me kinda sad.

I'll say one other thing, which is that in 2e I was never at a loss for something to do. Turn 1, set up, turns 2-5 there was scoring to be done that turn. Now it feels like turns one and two are just spinning my wheels, 3 I try to get activation control and score a scheme. It's significantly less fun for me to have two and a half turns of, "nothing useful to do, guess I'll fight about it?" than the dynamic scoring structure of 2e.

I understand that there were conscious design choices to force crew engagement - which is why stuff like Deliver the Message and Cursed Object were so great. They forced engagement but also a more interesting (to me) set of problems than apply-combo-to-face.

[DuBlanck]

1 hour ago, Morgan Vening said:

One of the problems there is the massive variation in "minions". If I'm using Mature Nephilims  and you're using Desperate Mercs, I think I have a pretty decent advantage. It's the same issue with Upgrades.

I think that is solidly feature-not-bug territory - it makes X-keyword better at Public Demonstration than many other keywords, and that is fine (in theory, it's not fine in the current world where Mature Nephilim just murder everything as a winning strategy anyway).

[Litano]

9 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Obviously this would be with the drop of a new gaining grounds. Some schemes like Hidden Martyrs could remain end of game only.  Others like Outflank there are no issues with scoring in rounds 2/4 or whatever.  And any new gaining  grounds releases new schemes and refreshes the scheme pool.  Hidden Martyrs (or any other end game scheme) could simply read "At end of game, if the other model is alive..."   If 7-10 of the schemes are scorable during the game, and the remaining 3-6 are scorable at end game, you give choices - elite crews can pick the end game schemes which, like Hidden Martyrs, might take very few actions during the round (you can complete hidden martyrs with 0 AP spent), while crews who are focusing more on using AP during the game to score could score before all their cheaper models are destroyed by the elite crew.

 

For all of Malifaux's history up to 3E it's worked this way.  We've got lots of data on how it works, it works fine.  You can tell from how the rules are written the designers have thought of this, it's easy to make a reality.  I don't see it would introduce any confusion, the rules "you can only score one point on a scheme each round" still work whether point 2 is scorable in the next round, or at the end of the game. 

Right, this makes a lot of sense, and I agree that it'd be pretty easy to implement. The way you wrote your earlier post didn't seem to imply that we'd have any schemes which were scored once in-game and once end-of-game, so I was just trying to clarify. I think that this would swing the meta back toward smaller models, though I also agree with your point that it's probably not enough without buffs.

9 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, but I'm not sure there are many hypothetical schemes that:

• Are scorable by small models
• Are not scorable by big models
• Are not optimised by just ignoring it and focusing on killing.
• Involve running around dropping scheme markers.

You could have something quite specific, of course. "Have three models cost 5 or less on the opponent's table half" for example.

Yeah, I worry about this as well. Adding onto your point, something I've noticed in other miniature games is that it's very easy to create a situation where lots of small units do a better job of functioning as a poor man's big unit than vice versa. That effect hasn't shown up in Malifaux A) because of countervailing mechanics like pass tokens and B) because the big units do something so much more incentivized by the game rules that there's not much reason to imperfectly replicate their strengths with small units while pursuing another strategy. But I think a scheme like the one you identified is dangerous, because it flips your concerns on their head: now you've got a scheme that's more or less unscorable by elite crews, which only forces them to double down on the "kill the horde before they outscore us all" play pattern others have already raised.

Ideally, you'd like schemes that can be scored by cheap and expensive units alike, but offer bonuses for small-model crews. It's hard to do this with the very restrictive nature of scheme scoring, but I think there are possible fixes. What if point one of a scheme is written in such a way that it can be scored by any model, but point two is written in such a way that it's trickier to score with a high-cost unit? For instance, make a scheme with some David-and-Goliath or Underdog flavor in the title. Make the first point a fairly typical ask involving markers on the enemy's side or damaging a specific unit, then make the second point scorable only if the model is lower-cost than any enemy units within 6" when the first point is scored and lives til the end of the turn afterwards. I just came up with this iteration of the scheme off the cuff, so there are probably some unintended wonky consequences, but I think it's decent as a proof-of-concept for how a scheme can reward less elite crews while still being viable for elite crews and offer meaningful counterplay (ie kill the schemer before it can get a second point).

[RisingPhoenix]

2 hours ago, Litano said:

Yeah, I worry about this as well. Adding onto your point, something I've noticed in other miniature games is that it's very easy to create a situation where lots of small units do a better job of functioning as a poor man's big unit than vice versa. That effect hasn't shown up in Malifaux A) because of countervailing mechanics like pass tokens and B) because the big units do something so much more incentivized by the game rules that there's not much reason to imperfectly replicate their strengths with small units while pursuing another strategy. But I think a scheme like the one you identified is dangerous, because it flips your concerns on their head: now you've got a scheme that's more or less unscorable by elite crews, which only forces them to double down on the "kill the horde before they outscore us all" play pattern others have already raised.

I think this is unlikely to become an issue because of the structural nature of malifaux.  The ratio between "expensive unit" and "cheap unit" is about 2-3:1.  Other games it's much more dramatic.  Not to name names, but there's a specific wargame where a cheap unit can be something like "9 points/model" and an expensive unit can run over 200.  Obviously when you can purchase over 20 cheap units for the cost of one expensive unit there's a massive disparity in what's on the table. 

However for Malifaux, it's a very different situation.  The most elite army I know of is "Leveticus and the Horsemen" which takes Leveticus and all 4 riders for a total of 5 significant models.  The most spread crew I can imagine taking is "Mah and the Test subjects" with Mah Tucket, 3 Test Subjects, 2 Survivors, 3 Bushwackers, Brin, for 10 significant models. 

Ignoring whether either of those are good armies, that isn't much of a disparity, especially given that the riders naturally have a bonus action to move, and the cheap crew is going to quickly find its model count dwindling (while hopefully Levi isn't losing multiple riders quickly).   Most elite crews weigh in at 6 or so significant models, while most minion-heavy crews I've seen proposed weigh in around 9-10 significant models.  Building your crew to the pool should come into play.  An elite crew should be able to flex in a cheap model or two to get more AP when it needs to.  Or take something like the Hodgepodge Emissary that gives you "virtual AP" for scoring.  If you're bringing a 10 stone cache maybe you bring a 5 and take a scheme runner, or you trade in an 8 stone model for two 4 stone models.  For instance Levi could drop a horseman to take 2 Scavengers, and have more scheming power (and 3 horsemen). Or even take 2 necropunks and a soul battery with three horsemen to take the model count up to 7. 

Ultimately if it did become a problem (which due to how crew construction works and how point counts work I believe is unlikely) it wouldn't be hard to reign it back in GG4 or whatever.  We've had three gaining grounds favoring elite crews, one GG that favors broader crews would not hurt us much. 

[Litano]

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I think this is unlikely to become an issue because of the structural nature of malifaux.  The ratio between "expensive unit" and "cheap unit" is about 2-3:1.  Other games it's much more dramatic.  Not to name names, but there's a specific wargame where a cheap unit can be something like "9 points/model" and an expensive unit can run over 200.  Obviously when you can purchase over 20 cheap units for the cost of one expensive unit there's a massive disparity in what's on the table. 

However for Malifaux, it's a very different situation.  The most elite army I know of is "Leveticus and the Horsemen" which takes Leveticus and all 4 riders for a total of 5 significant models.  The most spread crew I can imagine taking is "Mah and the Test subjects" with Mah Tucket, 3 Test Subjects, 2 Survivors, 3 Bushwackers, Brin, for 10 significant models. 

... [remainder still pertinent but cut for space]

I think all the points you raise here are really good ones. As a recent convert from the Wargame That Must Not Be Named, I definitely know what you mean when you say that the relatively small discrepancy in points between low- and high-cost models in Malifaux means that the composition of a crew doesn't have as much impact on action economy as it might in other systems. That said, I still think a scheme like @Maniacal_cackle's "Have three models cost 5 or less on the opponent's table half" might create too much of an incentive to bring low-soulstone models. To go back to your example of the most hypothetically elite crew available with Leveticus and the Riders, even the most extreme iterations of this list you proposed for higher model count can't score this scheme. A few schemes that exert this strong an effect on crew building are probably fine; hell, I can even see the argument that the pool we currently have does this already, just without explicit mentions of the soulstone values of models. But adding too many schemes like this can create a world where certain pools have 2 or even 3 schemes that are almost mathematically impossible for the "standard" compositions of many keywords unless they really contort their hires, which is why I proposed a less extreme approach to boosting low-cost viability later in the post you quote.

FWIW, I'll add that my status as a relatively new Malifaux player probably colors a lot of my feelings on this question. As alluded to above, I only recently arrived at this game after spending countless hours borrowing my friend's shiny toys so we could square off in wargames with a much higher IRL-money cost of entry. After the pandemic shut that down, one of the things that initially drew me to Malifaux was the relatively small army sizes and correspondingly low costs of assembling a viable crew. I realize that playing the game at its highest level means rounding out an entire faction and tailoring your master and hires to the pool and opponent, but newcomers like myself who are trying to pinch pennies can (and have) started playing the game with 2 or 3 boxes bought at a very reasonable MSRP, which then sets us up for even semi-competitive play like an event at a local shop. Even leaving aside the point that higher model-count armies usually tend to be pricier and spread across more boxes, creating a set of schemes that strongly compels this demographic of relatively new players to reinvest in their plastic seems like a dangerous game. I know that this can happen on a small scale with errata to specific units or even a medium scale with revisions to mechanics like Distracted or Hazardous Terrain, but adjusting knobs of the game that could render the current most-popular (and cheapest) compositions not only more balanced but even underpowered just seems like something Wyrd would be very conservative with. It's definitely a tricky situation, because right now the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and that also disenfranchises some players for out-of-game money considerations, but I just feel like it could be very easy to overcorrect here.

Again-- all of this is the initial thoughts of someone relatively experienced in the genre but relatively inexperienced in this specific game, so I'm not trying to throw the gauntlet at anyone. Would love to hear your perspective on this!

[DuBlanck]

On 2/4/2022 at 7:00 PM, Litano said:

But adding too many schemes like this can create a world where certain pools have 2 or even 3 schemes that are almost mathematically impossible for the "standard" compositions of many keywords unless they really contort their hires

I consider this another feature-not-bug state - to me, it is desirable that the pool dictates your crew construction; there should not be a 'standard' composition, it is a good thing if there are pools you cannot run Levi-4-horse to 8VP.

I understand the position that it is not good to have pools that a new player mathematically cannot score full VP in due to their limited available models.

I think it is more important to design a solid diverse core game than to avoid the niche times that a very specific combination of schemes result in a very specific combination of boxes having a tough game. It isn't even true that any player needs a whole faction to cover all pools - indeed, many players play a pretty limited range of keywords/Masters, far from a whole faction.

[Adran]

On 2/4/2022 at 7:00 PM, Litano said:

 But adding too many schemes like this can create a world where certain pools have 2 or even 3 schemes that are almost mathematically impossible for the "standard" compositions of many keywords unless they really contort their hires, which is why I proposed a less extreme approach to boosting low-cost viability later in the post you quote.

 

Personally, the viewpoint that there are standard compositions probably means we need a change up. What I want from malifaux is a set of different challenges. I like turning up to a table and when I find out what I'm doing, create my list then. I do not like the "bring 1 list and make it do everything". That's not why I play malifaux. If we can make a series of Strategies and schemes that encourage players to change the lists around, then I think that is a good thing. If you only have 50 ss worth of models, then you can probably play them all with that crew, but you may struggle, but that's true at the moment, if you don't have the right 50 ss you will struggle, and to get the right 50ss you probably need to by 100-150 ss anyway. You don't need the whole faction to be competitive, but against other competitive players you probably do need to have option in crew hiring anyway.

(many of us lived through M2E where by the end it turned out that the complaint was "why bother hiring big model A, I can get 2 generic model B for that price and they do better". Its the exact reason we have pass tokens in this edition, but I personally think they have gone too far the other way. (Actually it was probably more of Why bother hiring model B I can get 6 stuffed piglets for that cost, and make it so I go last, and score all the points and kill the big threats with no retaliation. Wait you mean this was supposed to be an alternating activation game, oops!)

[Litano]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

Personally, the viewpoint that there are standard compositions probably means we need a change up. What I want from malifaux is a set of different challenges. I like turning up to a table and when I find out what I'm doing, create my list then. I do not like the "bring 1 list and make it do everything". That's not why I play malifaux. If we can make a series of Strategies and schemes that encourage players to change the lists around, then I think that is a good thing. If you only have 50 ss worth of models, then you can probably play them all with that crew, but you may struggle, but that's true at the moment, if you don't have the right 50 ss you will struggle, and to get the right 50ss you probably need to by 100-150 ss anyway. You don't need the whole faction to be competitive, but against other competitive players you probably do need to have option in crew hiring anyway.

Oh yeah, I definitely agree that the flexibility of Malifaux is one of the big upsides, I just don't know how far it should get pushed if that makes sense? Like, one of my introductions to the game when I was looking into keywords was the Deep Dive episodes of Third Floor War's Tabletop Talk pod. And lots of those deep dives featured guests who had a mentality of "~30 stones' worth of models in any given crew are pretty locked in for me, but I'd say that the remaining 20 get adjusted pretty often to fit the pool." So that's been the mentality I've gone with as I got started with the game, but I can definitely see another point of view that says "~30 stones of pre-determined models is too high, that reflects a power discrepancy between the best choices and the worst that should be remedied." I think the idea of having a semi-pushed "core crew" is somewhat comforting for new players, since it gives them a basic framework to begin experimenting off of which can eventually be striped down or discarded when they gain comfort, but it definitely does undermine the extent to which Malifaux games are won or lost by a player's ability to create specific crews for specific pools and matchups.

[RisingPhoenix]

First, lets kill the debate the simplest way possible - point out that new players are going to buy a master box.  A master box has at least 3 minions in it*.  Therefore schemes that require lots of minions are if anything new player friendly - someone who just bought Yan Lo's box has 3 Gokudo, Zorida's has 3 Waldgeists, Jack Daw has 3 Guilty, and so on and so forth.  So @Maniacal_cackle's idea of a 3 minion scheme is probably a pretty solid one.  It's also okay to have schemes that are very hard for a crew to score - if a crew doesn't have placeable "unusual" markers scoring Research Mission can be quite hard, for instance. 

These elite crews are ones played by experienced players, and we can assume experienced players still have the minions from the original crew box.  They'd probably even enjoy whipping them out to play with them.  So if a scheme requires some minions to run off and do something, that's totally cool.

Also, @Maniacal_cackle was kind of making a rhetorical point that people missed..  Minions that cost 4-5 are very often considered weak in M3E because they're kind of, well... weak.  Not every single one, but I'll say from my faction there's two that don't fall into that, and one of them is a new release (Wyrd has realized and course adjusted on their errors).  But even if you made a scheme that focused on those minions, people are just going to bring the good ones like Guilty, Necropunks, and Death Marshalls.  No one is going to bring 12 stones of Molemen or Lyssa or 15 stones of Guild Autopsies, because that's just terrible. 

 

 

*If someone wants to win internet points they can go through all 60+ master boxes and point out that there's one that doesn't work this way.  You can win internet pedant of the month. I'm not gonna bother, this is true for easily 95%+ of masters

[Noxious Nephlim]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:29 PM, RisingPhoenix said:

 A master box has at least 3 minions in it*. 

there are 2 master boxes that do not have 3+ minions, perdita's and kirai's.

if you don't count totems, there's also lord cooper's box.

and if you don't count insignificant models, there's also hamelin's box too.

how many internet points do i get? 😄

[admiralvorkraft]

3 hours ago, Noxious Nephlim said:

there are 2 master boxes that do not have 3+ minions, perdita's and kirai's.

if you don't count totems, there's also lord cooper's box.

and if you don't count insignificant models, there's also hamelin's box too.

how many internet points do i get? 😄

Ironically? 3. 

[RisingPhoenix]

Internet pedantry, the one constant in the universe. 

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

I'm actually kind of impressed you went through every one, but the 95% point stands.  It's also amazing how you can get so many people on the internet who won't engage with an idea but will engage with any tangent to try and sound more knowledgeable

[Necrokamo]

Gaining Grounds - Season Three