Jump to content

Balancefaux 2.1 - format for a new errata!


Maniacal_cackle

Recommended Posts

Well, the initial Balancefaux experiments are in, and we have a new errata, so time to update the format and introduce a 'new' one!

These are the two main tournament types I'll be running for now:

Standard, anything goes:

Play Malifaux using the regular rules (so double masters and Madness content is allowed).

Balancefaux:

The idea of this format started by banning things until they go through an errata cycle. It has since grown to adjust to the new smaller errata.

Uses the Singles format.

All Madness of Malifaux content is banned. Versatiles from Malifaux Burns are banned. So any models with the following keywords are banned...

  • Arcanists: Witness or Watchmen.
  • Bayou: Angler or Jockey
  • Explorer's Society: Bygone and the Yaksha model
  • Guild: Cavalier, Guild mage, and Gatling Gunner
  • Neverborn: Returned or Grim.
  • Outcasts: Bygone and the four Outcast Syndicate models
  • Ressers: Returned, Enslaved Spirits, and Gwisin
  • Ten Thunders: Red Library, Story, and Sayuri.

And that's it! For the other ~640 cards in the game, go wild!

I've run through a lot of ideas for what could be removed, and this seemed like the smallest, least biased intervention that led to a prediction of a balanced format. Now time to try it out!

For those currently in a Balancefaux tournament, these changes won't go into effect until the event is over or the TO says otherwise.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maniacal_cackle changed the title to Balancefaux 2.0 - format for a new errata!

I'll just flag here that I'm skeptical about trying to add a curated ban list to the rule of "has this been through an errata cycle already?" I can't picture using the format with the armchair quarterbacking of "Wyrd should have addressed X." I still like the original notion and might try running it or suggesting it for a local event, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I'll just flag here that I'm skeptical about trying to add a curated ban list to the rule of "has this been through an errata cycle already?" I can't picture using the format with the armchair quarterbacking of "Wyrd should have addressed X." I still like the original notion and might try running it or suggesting it for a local event, though.

There's like an hour long conversation on the LFG discord if anyone wants to really explore that issue!

  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To shed more light on the general thinking:

I did not really focus on what content needed banning (like Damian needs a ban and people say Kastore might not).

I instead focused on removing a chunk of the game, and checking game balance. After removing Madness and seeing the new errata I did not feel satisfied.

So I removed another chunk (Malifaux Burns versatiles).

And then I hit a point where I felt like Balance was really good and there were tons of options for the remaining ~640 cards.

Is it a perfect solution?  No, but I'm not looking to fix everything. Just to make a format that is fun, balanced, and competitive.

Next step is to do another event and see how it runs.

  • Agree 3
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Out of interest, were there other versatiles besides Yannic that were deemed as problematic balance-wise?

Also, there's no mention of the Bayou starter in the list?

I couldn't quite remember the Starters, but I'm pretty sure Bayou and ES released the year before.  Neverborn and Outcasts were in Malifaux Burns I believe.

I mainly am worried about Perdita with guild mage and Von Schill with yannic.  And while yes I could just target those two, it'd be real rich for me the resser player to go "Enslaved and Gwisin are fine.  But Outcasts and Guild are clearly broken."

I also wasn't satisfied with just removing the madness content.

Removing these ~20 cards is the first moment that I felt like I had a good format. It is a bit clunky, but I hope the actual play experience will be excellent.

With other measures, I think they would have been easier to market, but ultimately made for a less fun and balanced format.

It was also after the conversations I had around the first Balancefaux event, where Yannic VS was constantly cited. But I didn't want to pick exactly which things were too strong so I did it by categories.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I couldn't quite remember the Starters, but I'm pretty sure Bayou and ES released the year before.  Neverborn and Outcasts were in Malifaux Burns I believe.

I mainly am worried about Perdita with guild mage and Von Schill with yannic.  And while yes I could just target those two, it'd be real rich for me the resser player to go "Enslaved and Gwisin are fine.  But Outcasts and Guild are clearly broken."

I also wasn't satisfied with just removing the madness content.

Removing these ~20 cards is the first moment that I felt like I had a good format. It is a bit clunky, but I hope the actual play experience will be excellent.

With other measures, I think they would have been easier to market, but ultimately made for a less fun and balanced format.

It was also after the conversations I had around the first Balancefaux event, where Yannic VS was constantly cited. But I didn't want to pick exactly which things were too strong so I did it by categories.

Bayou starter is in Malifaux Burns for what it's worth. Page 118 onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maniacal_cackle changed the title to Balancefaux 2.1 - format for a new errata!
13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

To shed more light on the general thinking:

I did not really focus on what content needed banning (like Damian needs a ban and people say Kastore might not).

I instead focused on removing a chunk of the game, and checking game balance. After removing Madness and seeing the new errata I did not feel satisfied.

So I removed another chunk (Malifaux Burns versatiles).

And then I hit a point where I felt like Balance was really good and there were tons of options for the remaining ~640 cards.

Is it a perfect solution?  No, but I'm not looking to fix everything. Just to make a format that is fun, balanced, and competitive.

Next step is to do another event and see how it runs.

And this is the problem with this sort of format. It is now a personal "these are fine" list, as even the original rule - "only use models that have been through a errata process" has had to be altered. 

If 33 hadn't been errata'd would you have just banned all non masters from Malifaux Burns on the assumption that only titles got errata'd suggesting that only titles went through the process?

That said, it's up to the T.O. what they want to run, and players can speak with their feet as to what events they attend and what they don't, so good luck with it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that simply this sort of thing existing already kinda fosters the attitude that it's OK for a TO to alter their tournament in these sorts of ways. And I see that as a net positive.

I mean, naturally a TO can run their tournament whichever way they like ("Arcanists get +5 SS for list building and Witness models gain Distracted +1 at the start of each turn") but that isn't normally done. Latter day Warhammer Fantasy Battle had several comp systems which all saw tournaments and were refined based on the results.

If I were to organize a tournament next month, I would have to think long and hard between this version of Balancefaux vs simply banning Madness but I wouldn't go for "normal" Malifaux. Then the attendees can choose to participate or not based on how they feel about the format on offer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have concerns with the idea of banning clearly "not overpowered" stuff (Asami2 in the previous cycle and likely some stuff in the current cycle), but I'm coming around on the reasoning of why you're doing full categories as opposed to picking and choosing specific items. It does take most of your bias out of it and I get that a full consensus is hard.

Also, it feels like the format is catered to a more seasoned competitive audience as newer players are more likely to be caught out with their new purchases being banned for reasons they won't understand (and potentially not having any backup options to use instead).  With that said, something like a worldwide vassal tourney seems like a good place for this format (as no purchases would be invalidated) and local TOs should read the temperature of their community*.  I agree with Math above that TOs should feel free to alter their tourney to match their community needs

 

I do want to give props for editing your original post to call the basic game "Standard" instead of your original term, which might feel true to you and others but was quite loaded.

 

*For instance our last local tourney allowed only 1 non-keyword model (OOK or Versatile), iirc, and previous tourneys have either allowed or disallowed double masters.  I've discussed with the local TOs the idea of allowing a Crossroads 7 player to pick their faction each game as opposed to the normal use 1 faction for the whole tourney format.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Adran said:

 

If 33 hadn't been errata'd would you have just banned all non masters from Malifaux Burns on the assumption that only titles got errata'd suggesting that only titles went through the process?

Well, the problem started when I expected ~30 errata cards and we got ~10.

Yannic Schill has been the constant feedback of the last event, but just banning the Outcasts stuff without touching the resser stuff for example feels weird.

Although the main thing is I kept tinkering until I found a format I liked.

Overall I think in my metas, if people give this a shot they will end up enjoying it.

6 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

 

If I were to organize a tournament next month, I would have to think long and hard between this version of Balancefaux vs simply banning Madness but I wouldn't go for "normal" Malifaux. Then the attendees can choose to participate or not based on how they feel about the format on offer.

 

2 hours ago, Cats Laughing said:

I still have concerns with the idea of banning clearly "not overpowered" stuff (Asami2 in the previous cycle and likely some stuff in the current cycle), but I'm coming around on the reasoning of why you're doing full categories as opposed to picking and choosing specific items. It does take most of your bias out of it and I get that a full consensus is hard.

Also, it feels like the format is catered to a more seasoned competitive audience as newer players are more likely to be caught out with their new purchases being banned for reasons they won't understand (and potentially not having any backup options to use instead).  With that said, something like a worldwide vassal tourney seems like a good place for this format (as no purchases would be invalidated) and local TOs should read the temperature of their community*.  I agree with Math above that TOs should feel free to alter their tourney to match their community needs

I think this format will shine when mixed with standard.

If a TO organizes three tournaments, they might find the standard format gets stale.  So doing two standard, one balancefaux will give a more enjoyable variety IMO (or whatever mix).

2 hours ago, Cats Laughing said:

I do want to give props for editing your original post to call the basic game "Standard" instead of your original term, which might feel true to you and others but was quite loaded.

Yeah wasn't ideal  xD

For further context,  I am planning on playing that format (standard) and enjoying it - just not 100% of the time. So the original name was a tongue-in-cheek poke, but it did not go over well so I removed it as not helpful.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me snag something from the discord as well...

Quote

to build on what I said earlier about calling it Balancefaux...

It isn't Wyrd's job to focus solely on game balance. Their job is to make the best damn game on the market.

This includes game balance at the competitive level, but also they have to worry about every other level of play from once a year players to hobbyists to tournament grinders. They have to worry about shipping, SKUs, LGSs, errata rates, card preferences, people losing their painted crews to nerfs, finding a solution that solves a thousand different problems.

As a bystander I have the luxury of going "oh this game isn't optimized for someone as competitive as I am. Maybe I can tinker out a format that focuses on what I care about most (balance)."

So I hope I didn't come off overly harsh on everyone's favorite game company 😅

..... <skip to next message>

Malifaux ISNT balanced but is still the best damn game on the market. Having broken masters doesn't make the game a failure.

Balancefaux as an alternative format aims to be balanced. If it ends up with a broken master, the format is a failure.

So I think that this format has different objectives from Malifaux overall, has a niche target audience, and has a different definition of failure.

If people tried the format and it got broken by Yannic Von Schill or any other master, we could objectively say that I failed to make a format that works.

Wyrd has not failed at all - they have made a great game that pleases many audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Possibly.

Normally wyrd erratas 20-30 models and now only did about 10, so some adjusting was required xD

Ahh I see. 

It was just my thought that it would need to be a concrete rule that "models are banned till they have been trough an errata". If something gets added to the list because it is problematic, then we might as well just make a banlist instead. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, esqulax said:

Ahh I see. 

It was just my thought that it would need to be a concrete rule that "models are banned till they have been trough an errata". If something gets added to the list because it is problematic, then we might as well just make a banlist instead. 

I think this is correct. Adding a curated ban list from one player (or even a group) is just a subjective enterprise by its nature (if efficient card draw engines are the issue why isn't Transmortis or Guard being banned, eg). Local metas play with all kinds of "gentlefolks' agreements" or TO rulings, but the moved goal posts on this are pretty souring, particularly as a Guild player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I think this is correct. Adding a curated ban list from one player (or even a group) is just a subjective enterprise by its nature (if efficient card draw engines are the issue why isn't Transmortis or Guard being banned, eg). Local metas play with all kinds of "gentlefolks' agreements" or TO rulings, but the moved goal posts on this are pretty souring, particularly as a Guild player.

The goalposts didn't ever really move, since the goal is to make a format that is fun, fair, and balanced competitively.

Ideally there'd have been pretty clear errata cycles to align with that since previously it largely worked that way, but for whatever reason we got an errata 1/3 the size of normal.

Anyway I hope people give it a go once they've had a chance to play Madness content for a while, as I think the ~640 cards left in the format will offer a pretty sweet experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Well... After seeing Madness in action, there's been a lot of support for Balancefaux in some of the competitive scenes 😂

'Draw 18' Shenlong, 'delete your master' Damian, and 'deal 20 damage' Tiri all seem to be riling some people up xD

That said, there's currently a divide between people who would rather just see Madness content banned (which I'm calling "SanityFaux"), and going all the way to the Balancefaux format.

So if you see those names floating around, the difference between SanityFaux and Balancefaux is that Balancefaux also bans the Malifaux Burns versatiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
7 hours ago, Keinash said:

We locally also incorporating balance faux, sadly this is not without its problems. Was hard to tell a returning player that the keyword he is painting is not allowed for next tournament. But I rather ruin the fun for 1 player than ruin it for everyone else.

Interesting to hear!

What meta is that?

I keep hearing about different areas embracing Balancefaux which is great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information