Would you field bad Minions if they were a three for two deal?

[Math Mathonwy]

A lot has been said about the weakness of cheap combat Minions. Dedicated scheme runner Minions like Silurids or Necropunks are good as are more expensive Minions such as Samurai or Hanged but there's a lot of cheap combat/generalist Minions that suck. Stuff like Lightning Bugs or Wrastlers and such.

So what if they were a "hire two, get a third one for free!" type deal?

What are the sorts of bad Minions that you would take three for the price of two and which ones do you think that wouldn't see play even then (as it is a hefty investment)?

[Maniacal_cackle]

If Rabble Risers or Night Terrors got that deal, I'd definitely play them.

Even things like "cost less for each one you buy" would be worth considering. Probably to a minimum of 2 or 1 so every resser list didn't have 5 Mindless Zombie xD

Night terrors costing 5/4/3/2 would see me considering hiring 3 or 4 for sure.

[regleant]

On one hand, I support this. 10T would love it.

On the other hand, this skirmish game of 7-9 models on the table will start scaling upwards, and I don't know if people want that...

[Regelridderen]

I regularly use two Sorrows, so I wouldn’t mind getting a third for free. 

False Witnesses would be all over my Lucius lists. 

 

[DuBlanck]

Along the same lines as @regleant, there are a few minions I'd take three of, but I'd strongly prefer keeping the model count safely under a dozen per crew.

[Autumn King]

I will take anything if it has fun rules.  Enjoying the game is more important to me then curb stomping my opponent.  Plus I have fun trying to take the sub optimal models and trying to win with them.

[Mortarion]

It is an interesting idea. In my opinion, it would probably not fix bad minions, though. I feel that the main problem with them is that they give your opponent pass tokens (or less tokens to you) and they are often easy to kill and have bad stats, which can be exploited by your opponent for Scheme and Ability purposes. And what the bad minions can do does not counterbalance that. So getting more such models would not really fix the problem.

However, it would be a boost to mid-tier models. For example, I would definately consider fielding three Death Marshals or Riflemen if they got a discount. And I would probably try fielding bad minions with specific strengths, such as three Witchling stalkers or Guild hounds, but I fear that I would still be disappointed... 

[Banjulhu]

The problem with doing a cost reduction mechanic for taking a full complement of minions is that if such a thing was implemented the only ones that would see play most of the time are the powerful minions that have effects players want more of, the bad ones will still just sit on a shelf because an extra activation from a bad model is usually just not worth it.

The better move here would be to identify the crap minions and make them less crap via errata.

[Avatar of Butter]

On 7/1/2022 at 4:32 AM, Banjulhu said:

The better move here would be to identify the crap minions and make them less crap via errata.

I definitely think this would be the best fix, but I think that it's harder than you think. Every keyword I can think of with an unloved 5-stone minion either has a 6-7 stone minion that outshines it, or a Versatile model that does the job better. There may just not be a power level where the 5-stone minion is worth taking where it also doesn't invalidate the existence of the models that were outshining it. Malifaux has become a big game, and when a game gets big, some models are just not going to be worth taking.

As for the initial idea of making combat minions cheaper, I don't think we want to go down that road. Adding a discount to a 5-stone minion steps on the toes of 4-stone minions, and 4-stone minions are already almost universally not taken.

[Maniacal_cackle]

This problem is often overexaggerated as well. I just glanced through 5 cost models and nearly 30 of them were playable.

[DuBlanck]

On 7/6/2022 at 10:08 PM, Maniacal_cackle said:

I just glanced through 5 cost models and nearly 30 of them were playable.

Not to impugn your academic rigour unduly, but was that seeing if they were decent models, or finding pools where you would actually take that model in a crew over other options?

There's a number of models in this class that are decently playable, but barely ever first choice for a position/role - usually because there's a better model for 1-2ss more. [Edit: I realise I'm duplicating @Avatar of Butter's post here.]

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, DuBlanck said:

Not to impugn your academic rigour unduly, but was that seeing if they were decent models, or finding pools where you would actually take that model in a crew over other options?

There's a number of models in this class that are decently playable, but barely ever first choice for a position/role - usually because there's a better model for 1-2ss more.

They were models that I would expect to see in competitive play in at least some circumstances (assuming the master saw competitive play).

[Maniacal_cackle]

Philip and the Nanny is an interesting reference point.

I find them to be playable in competitive play in 2-3% of games.

Is that competitive? XD

[Adran]

13 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Philip and the Nanny is an interesting reference point.

I find them to be playable in competitive play in 2-3% of games.

Is that competitive? XD

Is that 2% in games where you pick Molly, games where you have announced ressers, or just games in general? ( I appreciate that strictly there isn't much difference between Molly games and resser games unless you don't have a full pool, but if the game is one I would prefer Seamus, and so wouldn't hire Philip but if I couldn't use Seamus for some reason and if I choose Molly, Philip is a good choice, it's still useful to know). 

Personally I think that 2-3% is a level I would be fine for resser games  but then that's based on only picking forgotten in around 12% anyway. Especially if it's a case that a GG change could increase that number. 

 

Going to the original question, for people that didn't play second edition, there was a time the oxfordian mage was considered really poor for a 6ss model. It got a free upgrade that if you hired 3 they each only cost 5 ( the upgrade could also be discarded to prevent2 damage) and they became very popular in many arcanist lists to spend 15 ss on them. Of course the new edition has different rules, but I think there is still a point that you may not hire a model at cost, but you would consider multiple of them for a reduction. ( something similar was also in place in first edition with guild hounds which cost 3ss, but 5 for a pair).  It's a way to give a model a non interger cost, but I think it works best if there is a thematic reason why a group should be better ( similar to the pack Hunter ability) rather than just added as a core rule. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Oh 2% of Molly games, which for a while was basically the same as 2% of resser games for me xD

[Azahul]

I actually do think the proportions of weak high cost models and weak low cost models have historically been pretty similar. Though the last time I did any research on that was pre-Malifaux Burns so the metrics may have shifted. It remains not unusual to see crews with at least one model in the cost 4-6 range.

 

What is unusual and what I think actually drives topics like this is crews that are predominantly cheap models, or even just seeing Minions of a single type being taken in multiples to get any use out of their maximum field allowance, are essentially nonexistent in competitive play. The first 30-35 stones of any crew are usually models of Cost 7 or higher.

 

Personally, I think this ultimately means that cheap combat models are where the problem typically lies. Cheap support models are popular, but you rarely need or want to spam out support pieces. Cheap schemers have a slighty more compelling case to be seen in multiples, but even the ones considered excellent like Crooligans or Necropunks (at their height) are seen as a 1-2 hire rather than 2-3. And that's fine, that's indicative of them being taken for a specialist role you don't need to take too much redundancy for. Worth noting too that in scheming all AP is of equal value, an Interact is an Interact regardless of how expensive the model doing it is, so there is actual incentives to find the cheapest way to do that role provided you believe it will live long enough to perform it.

 

So it seems to be cheap combat minions that fall by the wayside. Your Stat 4-5, Min 1-2 attacks on models that nevertheless seem to have little functionality beyond contributing to the combat. Which is where the incentive system goes the other way too. All Interacts are equal but not all attacks are equal, which means you save your resources for your good attacks (Stat 6, Min 3, usually the sole provenance of Cost 8+ models being the prime example). This means you don't spend cards on your cheap models which makes them even worse at combat than their stats initially appear, since they'll be going in unsupported.

 

How to fix this? Well, honestly, I do think it's best handled with careful tweaks to the cards of the models in question. Ways to make them less resource dependent though would probably help. Mechanics like the Stitched who become self-sufficient for cards is one way to do it. Giving more cheap models positive flips on their attacks would help to make them more reliable without taxing the hand. There isn't really a one size fits all approach but that would be a good guiding principle to start with.

[theamazingmrg]

On 7/6/2022 at 6:49 PM, Avatar of Butter said:

I definitely think this would be the best fix, but I think that it's harder than you think. Every keyword I can think of with an unloved 5-stone minion either has a 6-7 stone minion that outshines it, or a Versatile model that does the job better. There may just not be a power level where the 5-stone minion is worth taking where it also doesn't invalidate the existence of the models that were outshining it. Malifaux has become a big game, and when a game gets big, some models are just not going to be worth taking.

As for the initial idea of making combat minions cheaper, I don't think we want to go down that road. Adding a discount to a 5-stone minion steps on the toes of 4-stone minions, and 4-stone minions are already almost universally not taken.

This is how I see Frontiersmen in Frontier.  I can look at the card and see nothing objectively wrong with them (post-errata), but they'll almost always be left in favour of a Pathfinder.  The ability to summon Traps, move them,  and shoot at 14" ignoring Concealment is just objectively much better for 1ss more.

 

I might take them more if Deputy didn't cost a card, but that Keyword struggles for cards at the best of times.

[Azahul]

40 minutes ago, theamazingmrg said:

This is how I see Frontiersmen in Frontier.  I can look at the card and see nothing objectively wrong with them (post-errata), but they'll almost always be left in favour of a Pathfinder.  The ability to summon Traps, move them,  and shoot at 14" ignoring Concealment is just objectively much better for 1ss more.

 

I might take them more if Deputy didn't cost a card, but that Keyword struggles for cards at the best of times.

Frontiersmen are a pretty much perfect encapsulation of what I am trying to get at too. Low cost attrition pieces with an ability that costs resources, when you don't want to have to be spending resources on this model type to begin with. If we want cheap combat minions hitting the table with any frequency that is the exact sort of rule that would be prime targets for a redesign.

[Paddywhack]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

Going to the original question, for people that didn't play second edition, there was a time the oxfordian mage was considered really poor for a 6ss model. It got a free upgrade that if you hired 3 they each only cost 5 ( the upgrade could also be discarded to prevent2 damage) and they became very popular in many arcanist lists to spend 15 ss on them. Of course the new edition has different rules, but I think there is still a point that you may not hire a model at cost, but you would consider multiple of them for a reduction. ( something similar was also in place in first edition with guild hounds which cost 3ss, but 5 for a pair).  It's a way to give a model a non interger cost, but I think it works best if there is a thematic reason why a group should be better ( similar to the pack Hunter ability) rather than just added as a core rule. 

I'd love to see something like this re-instated for Hounds. They just die too easily on their own and are kind of designed to bring more. Wouldn't mind seeing something like the Oxfordian Mage thing come back to help some less-picked models. 

[DuBlanck]

On 7/11/2022 at 10:50 AM, Adran said:

oxfordian mage [& Misc. Hounds later]

This is, I think, a preferable solution - some sort of free upgrade for hiring multiples.

Hire 3 Mages, all Oxfordians get a free Suit.

Hire 3 or more Dogs, one Dog is Pack Leader, gains Pack Mentality (+1) always on, and gets Follow My Wag, or Coordinated A Pack, or some other Dog-only version of a medium-impact utility skill (bearing in mind that impact is tempered by Dog-only).

 

Aside, I've noticed that a lot of cheap Minions have a Trigger for every Suit somewhere in their actions, so perhaps this was intended to be some sort of flexibility thing allowing max value output, it just doesn't really work in execution.

[Avatar of Butter]

So, after discussing the topic for a while, the points everyone seems to agree on are:

• "bad" minions tend to be combat-focused. Minions that have support abilities, high defense, or scheming efficiency are not typically considered bad.
• This is because the attack action of a 4-5 stone model is typically less valuable than that of a 6+ stone model.  On the other hand, good defense-for-cost ratio makes. all enemy attack actions less efficient, all interact actions are equally valuable, and support effects improve and enable a crew's "heavy hitters".
• Changing the cost of cheap minions is problematic, as discounting a "bad" minion enough to make them worth taking means invalidating the models that people are currently taking instead.

It sounds to me like the best way to make these generalist minions more valuable is to make them less generalist. Malifaux is full of niche "counter" rules, like Laugh Off, Containment Suit, and Ruthless. Maybe shifting some of the power budget of these models into stronger, but less generally applicable rules would carve out a niche for them in crew building as "counter pick" models.

The only problem is that a lot of these "bad" minions also come in a master's crew box, and reducing the general power of a crew box in return for more skewed matchups in one direction or another makes starter games even less easy.

[Ozzac]

The GG3 schemes and strategies seem to reward cheap minions in some circustances, so maybe that could be a way to make them more playable.

[Math Mathonwy]

21 hours ago, Ozzac said:

The GG3 schemes and strategies seem to reward cheap minions in some circustances, so maybe that could be a way to make them more playable.

So far it hasn't really been working for me. The old good Minions are perhaps a bit better than they were previously but the ones that weren't really used still aren't good.

For example, in Guard the Stash, I took a lot of cheap models since it's a game of numbers. What ended up happening was that the more elite models of my opponent killed my unactivated cheap models thus gaining activation advantage and he was able to clear the markers on his last activations which had the ability to move my models. And on subsequent turns our numbers were equal except his models were better quality.