Titles ruined everything!

[DuBlanck]

19 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

The new person is a bit more competitively minded and we kinda feel that Malifaux is very tough sell for competitive people these days as the mental investment in getting good is so enormous.

And, weirdly enough, we also feel that the strength of Malifaux is in the competitive side of things. [SNIP] But that strength of Malfauxs really difficult to realize for new players as getting "tournament ready" for a competitive player in Malifaux is an absolutely massive undertaking these days.

16 hours ago, Adran said:

I think it's likely that they will continue to add 50-70 new profiles every year, which when you split them across 8 factions, or 50 ish masters, isn't that big an addition. ( but it can be a lot to learn to face).

If we were talking about a simpler game, I'd agree with @Adran here, but the 'point' of Malifaux is that is more complex than most of it's competitors, with extensive synergy building and all that jazz - 50 new profiles with this level of individual complexity and interlocking play is not the same as 50 new units in a game where every model walks and shoots and maybe has a special rule.

As it stands now, putting aside homework, you'd want/need to play North of 100 games just to face most of the Masters and Titles a single time to get an approximation of their actual table presence. That doesn't factor new impactful models like 33 that can meaningfully change how a Keyword might otherwise play.

I think Malifaux is too complex to be a mainly-casual game, but is now getting too big to pick up as a new (or even returning) competitive player.

 

18 hours ago, SEV said:

Wyrd should definitely strengthen the casual par of the game : making rules for legacy / campaigns play ; more random outcome and special encounter and even a coop mode are all things that worh exploring.

I would definitely like to see something like this - a more workable small-format game, an growth campaign like M2E had, stuff like that.

[regleant]

I may be in the minority on this one, but compared to other competitive games (e.g. Warmachine), not fully understanding an opponent's model or keyword isn't as big of a detriment. Nothing in this game is wiping out half of your crew from a single mistake (which can and will happen in other systems). Have I had OP opponents who reduced my chances of winning to 1%? Absolutely. But it wasn't due to models or keywords that I may or may not have seen before. It was due to a strong opponent. I think the balance is pretty tight within this game. Sure, there are tweaks needed here and there, but I've never felt like there was no chance to win. They way that Schemes and Strategies are designed, you have options other than straight-forward engagements.

That said, there are 50 new models per year on average? That seems like a big number. And I can see from an ultra-competitive standpoint, they might want to keep up with every nuance. Now let's compare to Magic, where there are literally 1000 new cards every year, is 50 new models that big of a deal? Magic has a far-larger competitive and casual player base than any miniature wargame, and while there are certainly grumblings about the number of releases, WotC is doing quite well. The only caveat, I guess, is that a game of Magic takes 15 minutes while Malifaux takes 2 hours, so the investment into a loss isn't as significant and you learn faster.

I am a competitive player, first, and hate "beer and pretzels" style of games. I started from 40k back in 2010, moved to WMH, and most recently Malifaux, and my only complaint is that the rules are not precise enough and not well-supported in the forums. Too often I see discussions on what a rule could mean or is intended to be, rather than a definitive authority from Wyrd saying "This means X." And to me, that is the only thing that would cause me to leave Malifaux to fulfill my competitive itch.

 

EDIT: Woof, didn't intend for this to be a rant. 

[Adran]

46 minutes ago, regleant said:

 

That said, there are 50 new models per year on average? That seems like a big number. And I can see from an ultra-competitive standpoint, they might want to keep up with every nuance. Now let's compare to Magic, where there are literally 1000 new cards every year, is 50 new models that big of a deal? Magic has a far-larger competitive and casual player base than any miniature wargame, and while there are certainly grumblings about the number of releases, WotC is doing quite well. The only caveat, I guess, is that a game of Magic takes 15 minutes while Malifaux takes 2 hours, so the investment into a loss isn't as significant and you learn faster.

 

That 50 might be lower than you get now, it's hard to say what a " typical" malifaux release year is, and the number is probably going up each year. That said 50 new models is roughly 5 new keyword crews, or one new model for each keyword currently in existence. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 hours ago, regleant said:

 

That said, there are 50 new models per year on average? That seems like a big number. And I can see from an ultra-competitive standpoint, they might want to keep up with every nuance. Now let's compare to Magic, where there are literally 1000 new cards every year, is 50 new models that big of a deal? Magic has a far-larger competitive and casual player base than any miniature wargame, and while there are certainly grumblings about the number of releases, WotC is doing quite well. The only caveat, I guess, is that a game of Magic takes 15 minutes while Malifaux takes 2 hours, so the investment into a loss isn't as significant and you learn faster.

Magic is an interesting comparison.

In Magic, only a small fraction of those thousand cards will be competitively relevant.

And as you say, you learn them quickly. They're very simple compared to a Malifaux card - I would say one malifaux card is as complex as dozens of Magic cards.

A dedicated mtg player will learn all those cards in a week, since you can grind so many games.

And even with the ease of learning cards, in Magic only releases from the last two years are legal in standard tournament play. So they essentially have a cap on how many cards you need to know at once.

[regleant]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Magic is an interesting comparison.

In Magic, only a small fraction of those thousand cards will be competitively relevant.

And as you say, you learn them quickly. They're very simple compared to a Malifaux card - I would say one malifaux card is as complex as dozens of Magic cards.

A dedicated mtg player will learn all those cards in a week, since you can grind so many games.

And even with the ease of learning cards, in Magic only releases from the last two years are legal in standard tournament play. So they essentially have a cap on how many cards you need to know at once.

I agree with what you wrote about 80%. Not that you said anything wrong, but there's a bucket of context that would need to go with each statement. 🤣 I also don't want to go down rabbit holes on off-topics. So...   I deleted everything I typed and am sticking with this. 

[Azahul]

8 hours ago, regleant said:

I may be in the minority on this one, but compared to other competitive games (e.g. Warmachine), not fully understanding an opponent's model or keyword isn't as big of a detriment. Nothing in this game is wiping out half of your crew from a single mistake (which can and will happen in other systems). Have I had OP opponents who reduced my chances of winning to 1%? Absolutely. But it wasn't due to models or keywords that I may or may not have seen before. It was due to a strong opponent. I think the balance is pretty tight within this game. Sure, there are tweaks needed here and there, but I've never felt like there was no chance to win. They way that Schemes and Strategies are designed, you have options other than straight-forward engagements.

That said, there are 50 new models per year on average? That seems like a big number. And I can see from an ultra-competitive standpoint, they might want to keep up with every nuance. Now let's compare to Magic, where there are literally 1000 new cards every year, is 50 new models that big of a deal? Magic has a far-larger competitive and casual player base than any miniature wargame, and while there are certainly grumblings about the number of releases, WotC is doing quite well. The only caveat, I guess, is that a game of Magic takes 15 minutes while Malifaux takes 2 hours, so the investment into a loss isn't as significant and you learn faster.

I am a competitive player, first, and hate "beer and pretzels" style of games. I started from 40k back in 2010, moved to WMH, and most recently Malifaux, and my only complaint is that the rules are not precise enough and not well-supported in the forums. Too often I see discussions on what a rule could mean or is intended to be, rather than a definitive authority from Wyrd saying "This means X." And to me, that is the only thing that would cause me to leave Malifaux to fulfill my competitive itch.

 

EDIT: Woof, didn't intend for this to be a rant. 

I don't disagree honestly. As you say, the degree to which not knowing the opposing crews impacts you is a lot less than other systems I've played. The relatively small range of impactful auras, the importance of scoring, the alternating activations, and the control given to players through being able to cheat and stone can actually make the game comparatively forgiving once you're over the hump of knowing how to play. I've played systems where bringing no-healing tech into something healing focused like Jedza would be considered a hard counter, but in Malifaux that same tech doesn't feel like a true shut-down since there are many ways to play around it on the table. Similarly, being taken off guard by something unknown will put you on the backfoot, but will rarely be so game changing that you won't be able to make a game of it provided you took a good crew for the Strategy and Scheme Pool and focus on getting points.

[Math Mathonwy]

11 hours ago, Azahul said:

I don't disagree honestly. As you say, the degree to which not knowing the opposing crews impacts you is a lot less than other systems I've played. The relatively small range of impactful auras, the importance of scoring, the alternating activations, and the control given to players through being able to cheat and stone can actually make the game comparatively forgiving once you're over the hump of knowing how to play. I've played systems where bringing no-healing tech into something healing focused like Jedza would be considered a hard counter, but in Malifaux that same tech doesn't feel like a true shut-down since there are many ways to play around it on the table. Similarly, being taken off guard by something unknown will put you on the backfoot, but will rarely be so game changing that you won't be able to make a game of it provided you took a good crew for the Strategy and Scheme Pool and focus on getting points.

Have to say that I can't think of many systems other than WM/H that would be worse than Malifaux in that regard. Maybe Guild Ball? And I've not played Marvel Crisis Protocol or the Batman minis game so cannot comment on them.

But out of the minis games I've played, Malifaux is way, way rougher in that regard than 40k, AoS, WHFB, Epic, Mordheim, Necromunda, Alkemy, Eden, Carnevale, Dark Age, Warmaster, Infinity, Moonstone, Bushido, Twisted, Blood Bowl, Arcworlde, 1650, Flames of War, Pulp City, Black Powder, Confrontation, Lion Rampant, Uncharted Seas, Dropzone Commander, and probably a dozen or so others that I forgot from the list.

And aside from direct comparisons, maybe me and my meta are an exception but we really strongly feel that facing a new Master in capable hands is a massive handicap. It isn't quite an autoloss but if the skill levels of the players are approximately on the same level it can be very rough. That said, all Masters/keywords aren't created equal in this regard and there certainly are Masters who are easier to grasp on the fly, as it were.

[Cats Laughing]

8 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

40k, AoS, WHFB, Mordheim, Necromunda

These are all the same game.

Epic, Warmaster, Dropzone Commander

These are also basically the same game.

I'm being flippant, but in general agree that these games you list (and Bloodbowl) are based on simple mechanics that allow you to pretty easily learn your opponent's army with a simple read through before game. I can't comment on the other games you've listed, but assume you're correct.  Malifaux is a complex game, so it's not surprising that facing a new master/keyword can be a tough game.

FWIW, MCP has a few gotchas that can catch players out the first time they face it (and it may take a few more times of facing it to figure out a counter), but MCP does have a rubberbanding effect built in so there's only a few feels bads, imho.

 

I do think that Malifaux's alternating activations helps keep you from getting steam rolled by misplays or not knowing your opponent's crew, whereas a misplay in some of the games you mention above can see you lose half your army and subsequently the game. Many of the 40k games I played before moving on to other systems were very one sided with the winning player spending the last turn or two hunting down the one remaining model on the opposing side with basically their entire army.

 

In my admittedly limited Malifaux experience (I've been playing longer than some, but get in fewer games than many) it feels like when I'm bringing a master my opponent hasn't faced, they're often bringing a master I haven't faced, so we're both on fairly level ground there. This probably changes for players who get in many more games, and may therefore feel caught out by new title masters, whereas people who getting in fewer games like myself will see a new title master as the same new experience as facing a non-title master they haven't faced yet.

 

I really wonder how much of a difference there is between two presumably similarly skilled players, with one playing a crew they know well against a new title they haven't faced, vs the other player using a new title they're still learning against a crew they've faced before.  One has the advantage of knowing their crew and therefore being able to spend their brainpower on trying to figure out how to counter the new opponent. The other has the advantage of knowing how to counter their opponent but needs to spend their brainpower on making their own crew work.  This likely depends on how much the mechanics of each crew counter each other and if one is inherently easier to learn/counter than the other and also how each crew interacts with the scheme/strat pool and deployment and terrain.

[Regelridderen]

Malifaux is a living game. The meta changes as Gaining Grounds are released and models are brought in line. It’s not perfectly balanced, as some keywords are very versatile, and others are only good in the right match-up and circumstances.

It needs to be everliving, because we as players enjoy the change and newness, when things go stale we migrate to new and exciting things.

I applaud wyrd for their ambition, when deciding to double the masters in the game, and sure some things are silly and out of bounds, but what we’ve seen so far is that the OP stuff is brought in line even if they reign for a while e.g. Shen Long, Colette, Dreamer, Ivan etc., and now Kirai and Yan Lo has their time to shine. The new masters are great in giving new players the toolbox to deal with more objectives with a limited model collection, even if it means they have to deal with a doubly complex meta - so it’s double edged.

Unlike GW style power creep games, as we also in other manufacturers like Corvus Belli. Wyrd at least seems dedicated to aim for balance - even if they don’t get it right the first time.

-

What I’d love to see, would be Wyrd ressurecting the initial draw of M3E, the keyword synergy, the master only abilities etc. I hoped that would be their design philosophy, but we do see some masters that are just too good with no drawbacks e.g. Summoners with great card draw like Perdita or summoning that drains your opponents resources like Kirai2.

But all in all Malifaux is still the best mini game I’ve played.

[Math Mathonwy]

7 hours ago, Regelridderen said:

I applaud wyrd for their ambition, when deciding to double the masters in the game, and sure some things are silly and out of bounds, but what we’ve seen so far is that the OP stuff is brought in line even if they reign for a while e.g. Shen Long, Colette, Dreamer, Ivan etc., and now Kirai and Yan Lo has their time to shine. The new masters are great in giving new players the toolbox to deal with more objectives with a limited model collection, even if it means they have to deal with a doubly complex meta - so it’s double edged.

Unlike GW style power creep games, as we also in other manufacturers like Corvus Belli. Wyrd at least seems dedicated to aim for balance - even if they don’t get it right the first time.

A cynic might note that Wyrd's balancing style where they balance old stuff but new stuff is left alone for a year and a half means that the power creep is even more focused on new stuff than in other games

I mean, the facetious title of this thread came from the observation that without the titles the game would be in a very balanced state right now. But titles weren't touched so the power spikes remain and are actually more pronounced. Because, somewhat weirdly, the old powerhouses like pre-nerf Dreamer and Von Schtook and so on would've been right at home at the upper echelons of the title power levels.

[Regelridderen]

4 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

A cynic might note that Wyrd's balancing style where they balance old stuff but new stuff is left alone for a year and a half means that the power creep is even more focused on new stuff than in other games

I mean, the facetious title of this thread came from the observation that without the titles the game would be in a very balanced state right now. But titles weren't touched so the power spikes remain and are actually more pronounced. Because, somewhat weirdly, the old powerhouses like pre-nerf Dreamer and Von Schtook and so on would've been right at home at the upper echelons of the title power levels.

Absolute. I just choose not to go the cynic route 😉 I mean, Wyrd’s game design is just two guys after all.

Rather than complain about balance issues, I’d rather focus on how they’ve managed to make a 100+ variations in playstyle aligned with model themes. All masters are fun to play, even if there are some match-ups that clearly favour one over the other. I’m closing in on my twentieth keyword, and even if there are some I prefer over others, I’ve had good fun playing all of them. 

And one year isn’t much, I’m with this game for the long haul.

[Math Mathonwy]

2 hours ago, Regelridderen said:

Absolute. I just choose not to go the cynic route 😉 I mean, Wyrd’s game design is just two guys after all.

Oh I don't think that they are trying to make imbalanced models to make people buy more stuff. Actually I doubt any minis company does that, really. But their current balancing style makes it kinda inevitable.

Of course, power creep is weird in that you sortakinda need some to make the new stuff compelling but that's a lengthy discussion that I won't go into here.

2 hours ago, Regelridderen said:

And one year isn’t much, I’m with this game for the long haul.

But every Gencon a new book comes out and the cycle continues so it isn't one year but rather a constant state of things under the current balancing model. Explorers were nerfed hard last errata and I expect titles to be nerfed hard in next year's errata (hope!) and then the next book will get nerfed in 2024 and so on.

[Regelridderen]

1 hour ago, Math Mathonwy said:

But every Gencon a new book comes out and the cycle continues so it isn't one year but rather a constant state of things under the current balancing model. Explorers were nerfed hard last errata and I expect titles to be nerfed hard in next year's errata (hope!) and then the next book will get nerfed in 2024 and so on.

You know… I can live with that. It’s not perfect, but it’s okay 😊