The Five Factions, In Play

[Nathan Caroland]

Interesting question, and personally, not one that I've thought of though it does capture my interest.

Not a card player myself in the least though I suppose it is something down the road that some enterprising individual might be able to slap together.

[redstripe]

It was my intent to make the Wyrd deck of cards a character in that story. I think you'll probably see other characters playing and using that deck in the future.

I think you'd probably get some wyrd (har har) looks if you tried to wager your spleen during a card game, though.

[Keltheos]

A card game where you and your opponents all play as "Hags" betting on body parts. Object of the game? Get a set of everything (or a set of pairs/triples) before 'betting the corpse' away.

[Nathan Caroland]

Oooh ... oooh!

[Keltheos]

Idea handed onward.

[goblyn13]

kinda like Poker meets Operation?

[Keltheos]

Heh, sorta. More like the parts they've gathered from past players (like the poor sod in the Ante story) are all piled together for a big game where the winner takes the parts for her own purposes or assembles some sort of golem...

[Tenebræ]

So then, the winner would be the first person to get all of someone elses organs and all of their own?

[Keltheos]

Something like that, or one of everything (start out with a mix of stuff - chits or something with a body part listed on them).

Hadn't really thought any more than the above about it.

[jwatto1]

that would be usefull for resurectionists

[TheBugKing]

A fun derivative for the Neverborn would be to bet humans that have been captured. Food is always fun to play with!

[Huffdogg]

If the Guild subfactions are tooled up to combat specific other main factions, how do you avoid creating a balance issue whereby, f'rinstance, Ortegas are nasty vs. Neverborn but blowey vs. Arcanists?

[invictus]

IMO, it is lot balanced in start because you have so many different values on a cards, even more than on a 2d6 because here you can get 2-14, and there 2-12.

This came from a man who only saw video presentation of Malifaux, so please don't take this for granted...

[thetang22]

IMO, it is lot balanced in start because you have so many different values on a cards, even more than on a 2d6 because here you can get 2-14, and there 2-12.

This came from a man who only saw video presentation of Malifaux, so please don't take this for granted...

I think what Huffdog is getting at is that each of the Guild factions have certain abilities that are supposedly targeted at being good against one of the other factions (and in essence, meaning they should have weaknesses to counter that inherent bonus they have against the given faction).

So, as far as balance concerns - it makes you wonder if they do have these bonuses (paired with weaknesses to balance out), are they going to be balanced overall compared to ALL the factions?

Lets say the the Ortega's go into a match against the Neverborn and stomp them because they are geared to do well against them, but then their next match is against the Arcanists who in turn smash them because the Ortega's aren't geared to go against the Arcanists. How will it be balanced in that effect? Anybody playing a Guild warband could never expect to win against anything other than the faction they are geared against.

It all depends on these advantages they are given (and whether they are given a disadvantage to counter). You would think to keep them capable against factions other than their target faction you would have to eliminate the disadvantage, but then that raises the question of - is it fair that they are given a certain advantage without a disadvantage to balance?

I wonder though, because in one of the videos Eric mentions that the Guild is currently overpowered (or he at least hints at it).

[absolute_d]

Well in any given situation, you have force compositions that do well against one type but poorly against another. The Guild subfactions just become a more in-depth level of that type of interaction.

Should my Death Marshals have a tougher time against the Neverborn? I like the idea honestly. I have ot change my tactics, my force build (when I've got that option with more model choices) and my thought process to win the game. Do I think it's fair? Hell yea I do, because the Resurrectionist player I'm facing is gonna have the same disatvantage when facing me.

Currently it plays out well:

Death Marshals vs Resurrectionist - DM advantage

Death Marshals vs other faction - other faction advantage

Death Marshals vs other faction - par or no advantage

So you build in an advantage with one faction and a disadvantage to another with parity on the third. The one thing this will affect later on is future factions or sub-factions if they happen.

It creates a depth that currently IMO is not out there with any game, plus you have to actually spend some time thinking a little bit about force comp and tactics. Not only do you have to think about how you're going to play your preferred faction type, but you need to start giving more thought to the type of faction you know you have trouble overcoming. You can't just cheeze your way to a win, 'specially in a tourney format.

For example, let's say you have difficulty playing against a trixy fast army...so clearly Neverborn are going ot be your Nemesis in this game, but you don't like the Ortega's and wanna play the Witchhunters. But the Witchhunters have disadvantage against the Neverborn (they don't really as far as I know, I'm making an example here), you now have to totally rethink any stratagy you might be running with Witchhunters when you face the Neverborn, or you may not even play that faction at all when you see them hit the table...damn Neverborn...well time to dig out my Arcanists.

It adds a completely new set of twists to a lot of things in my opinion. The inverse however should apply to the other factions - Neverborn are hunted by Ortegas and have disadvantage, but excel against the Witchhunters and are on par with the Death Marshals for example. This does however mean that future factions if any will have to be released in pairs, and on par with current factions and at a disadvantage with future factions...but that's a whole nother can o' worms to explore.

Oz

[Huffdogg]

It's interesting, certainly, but it speaks of poor overall game balance. The entire theory of game design and game balance usually hinges on the idea that if the game is properly balanced, players of equal skill should have even odds of winning against one another with any intelligently assembled force. Making one inherently weaker against a certain type of force and stronger against another isn't balance, it's mirror-image imbalance.

[absolute_d]

Well...we could hinge the entire game off of one force...lets say we chose the Spac...er Neverborn, and then we do our best to make every other force in the game kinda competitive against them.

I understand what you are saying, but even in a game that's as borken as WM/Hordes, there is no specific balancing. Each faction in the game has it's own rules for development, the points cost for a unit of Cygnarans is not directly comparable to a unit of Khadorans or Cryx...let alone anything in Hordes. Do you think the game has great overall balance? I love the game but I know for a fact it doesn't, the power swing there is ever changing but it still wreakes of imbalance. But I'll take a game of WarMachine/Hordes over Infinity anyday (which is quite possibly the most balanced mini game I've ever played and boring as hell).

Same can be said of any game outside of chess or Risk or Stratego. Once you start adding multiple levels of variables, abilities and game effects your actual ability to give a system 'overall balance' is incredibly difficult. It becomes a mathmatical equation that will make most Statistics Professors sick to their stomachs. I do understand and can relate to the entire theory of game design, but the one problem with it is that it's theory.

To me a game system ultimately is interesting or it's not. Outlandish balance issues are a problem, but small advantages here and disadvantages there make for a more varied field of play, not an unbalanced one in my opinion. I see your point and can understand the concerns, but if it can be pulled off so it's not a game swinging balance issue, it makes the game itself that much more interesting and fun.

It'll be a fine line to walk and a tough one to pull off I'm sure, but to me it makes perfect sense and would make for a completely unique gaming experience if executed well.

We'll see!

Oz

[Huffdogg]

I think that back when WM was balanced, it was good. Half the reason it is lame now is because overdevelopment has wrecked the nice, even footing it began with. And Hordes...pfffft. That game reeked from the start. It's about as fair and balanced as Fox News. I've never played Infinity, but that's mostly because it never could get my attention, so I can't say I'm surprised that it is boring to play.

I'm not trying to soapbox and say that I'm the authority on game design or anything, and I can certainly agree that there is a place in every game for certain combinations of abilities to have an edge against certain other units. That's what makes force creation part of the art of the game, and that's great. All I'm saying is that if the edge is too significant against specific other forces, in a game with as few models as Malifaux is purported to use, it can be a HUGE factor. Now I don't even know that this is a real concern; that's why I asked the question. The focus of each of the Guild subfactions may exist in fluff alone, with no rules kick in any direction. But IMO if it's a strong enough sway one way or the other in the rules, it's the kind of thing that can ruin any sort of organized play.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Huffdogg

[Jabberwocky]

I have thoroughly enjoyed watching this discussion develop! I do have to toss in my two cents, though. Equality in gaming I believe is extremely difficult to achieve and truly only possible if opposing pieces are the same as in chess, for example. In a game such as this, I suppose it would be possible to change the name of the attack, but make it the same damage as a piece of equal value. For example (theoretically speaking as I have not been a part of the beta), while the witchlings use a pistol and sword for ranged and HTH attacks, the Neverborn tots use small spells and claws. Both sides are "different" but the value of the attack or effect would be the same.

I think more gamers would find this "boring" than not. That being said, the card playing aspect of the game may add some variability to it, although again for parity, all card values would need to be identical.

Obviously, great discrepancy is not wanted. However, life is not always balanced. Even in "real life" there is some degree of rock-paper-scissors. Archers will likely trounce footsloggers at distance. If the swordsman can close the gap, the archers will scatter. Cavalry have certain advantages in certain situations, but are weak against a wall of spearman.

Just a bit of rambling early in the morning...hopefully I have made sense (not yet had any coffee...)

[Hinton]

@ JW: how do you function without coffee so early in the morning?? Man, I need my cuppa right away.

Like Jabber, I've been following this discussion as well and it's interesting to see the different takes and points-of-view on everything.

Discussion is always good; please keep it up!

Without giving too much away (and FF or Eric can always add to - or subtract from - this if they want), as far as Malifaux gameplay goes, things aren't going to be severely unbalanced. You won't see one faction simply crushing another. There are "faction" bonuses, so some factions/groups will fare better against a certain faction/group; against other factions, they'll do ok. It may not be "perfectly" balanced and that's a good thing because, as some have pointed out, it could simply lead to boring gameplay; kind of like a large, expensive game of Tic-Tac-Toe (although a very pretty version of it).

Some factions may be at a slight disadvantage when facing others, but that's where strategy comes into play. This isn't going to simply be a "go out there and pound on the opponent" (aka "hack-and-slash") type of game. I highly doubt that you're going to see any one faction with such an advantage over another that it become impossible to win against them, but you will probably need to think about your attacks/strategy beforehand.

Again, keep up the discussion! Wonderful stuff!

[thetang22]

It adds a completely new set of twists to a lot of things in my opinion. The inverse however should apply to the other factions - Neverborn are hunted by Ortegas and have disadvantage, but excel against the Witchhunters and are on par with the Death Marshals for example. This does however mean that future factions if any will have to be released in pairs, and on par with current factions and at a disadvantage with future factions...but that's a whole nother can o' worms to explore.

The catch though, is that it has never been stated that anybody other than the Guild was going to be designed around the faction advantages/disadvantages (at least I don't think it has been stated, I could be wrong). The whole idea of the Guild design was that the certain warbands were going to have advantages over a certain other faction.

It also would sorta make sense to have the rock-paper-scissor balancing to the Guild, but it has never been stated that they would be strong against one faction, equal with another, and weak against the other - it has only been stated that they were going to have advantages against a particular faction. That is what has me confused. If it has been stated otherwise, please correct me so I don't continue thinking the wrong thing.

[absolute_d]

@Huff - I for certain do not thing you're soapboxing. Granted I don't know you as well as Kel or some of the other SD's but I do know you and very much respect what you have to say. By all means, please continue.

@thetang22 - from as much as I know (I'm not in the beta, and have only as much info as you) you are correct. There was never any mention of the Guild factions having any disadvantages or parity with other warbands, only that they have certain gains over certain factions. But if that is solely the case, I will definitely through my hat in with Huff and stress my concerns on competitive game play and balance. If there's not a mitigation to factions balance, then it simply has an advantage over every other faction period.

If my Death Marshals have bonuses vs the Resurrectionists and nothing else and suffer no penalties, then they are better than every other faction. Period. Same applies with the Ortegas, and the Witchhunters. Even though they have bonuses against other factions, they are still better than every other faction. Make sense? Unless you make the power level of the Neverborn, Arcanists and Resurrections higher than the Guild factions to begin with, you're always going to have balance issues. And if that's the case you're going to have balance issues with the Guild being inherently weaker to offset the advantage they are given over their 'target factions'. So the need for mirror-image balance is kinda needed in my opinion. Can it work? Yes I believe it can, but there's a fine line to it. Can it screw things up? Wanna play Hordes? I'm a Circle player. Warmachine? I started with Khador. Like Huff said, WM used to balanced and had a good flow to it. Now there's sooooo many extra rules, tryin to remember what every unit in the game can do, impossible. So like I said previously there is a fine line that will have to be walked for this type of balance as it can spiral out of control and become a nightmare for the development team and the players.

Of coarse all this is pure conjecture on my part. I do know that EricJ and FF follow these threads like crazy and creation comes from discussion and brainstorming. I know that the more ideas we add, the easier it is to solve any potential issues that arise. How many times have you heard or read 'I never thought of that' when having a discussion? It's a great tool and I welcome all counter points to any opinions I make.

So please, add your thoughts, ideas and opinions to further the discussion and help where we can!

Oz

[demonherald]

I think the whole structure of the game and the cards counters a lot of the potential problems with imbalance and introducing multiple rules to face differing opponents as the suits of the cards can be called the bare mechanics, Then introducing the whole advantages and disadvantages to various races can be quite easily and unclumsily handled by tailoring the deck and using that element..

As there is no straight up dice rolling it takes out a lot of the usual complications in my eyes...The deck itself becoming as integral to the whole warband composition as the characters chosen.. In Most games the dice are used without thought as a mechanical tool leading to the element of chance always being there ,, The cards will require thinking and an extra element of strategy no matter what the advantages/disadvantages of a particular group.

The aim throughout and part of the reason that occasionally things may seem slow ( face it we're all impatient in this hobby .. not hearing anything in a day feels slow) is to keep the whole balance throughout the system so things are getting torn apart put together rejigged and the like so keep discussing away it's interesting to see the different views...

[TheBugKing]

Drawing on what you just said Demonherald, will certain factions be able to remove suits from their deck effectively increasing their chance of drawing on suit cards?

That would be a very interesting mechanic. It's basically like removing all the 1's on the D6's you use.

I personally like the current imbalances that WM and Hordes has. I am an avid Magic The Gathering player as well though and the thought of memorizing less then 300 different cards is quite easy for me. Try over 150,000! (I play Legacy as my preferred MTG format.)

I think you can actually get away with giving the guild warbands slight advantages over their respective targets if you make their over all point cost slightly higher. I'll happily play at a "disadvantage" against the guild if they have fewer starting resources then I do. That will also, neatly, bring the necessary, slight (stressing slight) disadvantage against the non target factions. It would also put the guild at parity against other guild warbands.

I am strongly for the built in imbalance. It adds spice to the tactical situations you face. You know at the outset that you are going to have to outplay someone who has the warband that targets you from the outset. You will know that you have a slight advantage against someone who doesn't. Both pieces of information will influence how you play and both can easily lead to a win or loss. I have seen many Circle players lose to Khador because they come to the table in a cocky fashion, knowing that they have a distinct advantage on paper. That doesn't necessarily translate to an advantage on the table though.

(For those that are curious, I play Cryx. I don't think we are at a disadvantage to any one so the above argument may be moot. <grin>)

[absolute_d]

I too play MtG...not as much as I used, I'm a very very casual player now, but at one time I have a full set of beta and an additional play set of the big 9/10. If all I had to do was remember 300 cards...not a problem, hell even 300 plainswalkers would be doable. It don't quite translate like that for WM/Hordes, when there are single models out there that have 10 cards worth of rules on them, you've scaled into a different realm. On top of that you've got 50+ pages of just errata and faq. Oiy. But I understand what you're saying there.

I agree though, I like the thought of imbalance. It elevates the game play IMO at more competitive levels. I dont know if removing a suit from the deck for a faction is what they have in mind, but I could be wrong of coarse. The staggered benefits of what I listed above should be easy enough to work in as a blanket type system. Such as:

+1 to hit vs your advantage

-1 to hit vs your disadvantage

Granted that's a very simplified dumbed down version, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying. It could also be a built in 'Master' mechanic where your chosen Master has a different set of bonuses/penalties to the cross faction line up. That would allow even more strategic depth to army build and selection. Where as something akin to this:

I choose The Judge as my Master, and his bonuses vs the Resurrectionists give my warband a higher chance of doing critical damage and causing them to go out of action quicker, but in return I have the same problem against me with The Arcanist - their magic now has more chance of causing crit damage to me.

Or

I choose Lady Justice as my Master and her benefit vs Resurrectionists is a higher chance to nullify attacks from them against me (so she increased my defensive power) but then against Arcanists the inverse is true, they hit me easier.

Now this gives me a number of options in warband build and it forces me to think and strategize about facing certain opponents. If I take The Judge, I want to have some guys who can fire off multiple attacks each round thereby increasing my chances that I do score a crit, but I also need to take guys with really high defense or agility skills to mitigate getting hit. Where with Lady Justice I want to capitolize on the fact that my def/ag is higher, but also need to keep in mind that I need some high armor to survive a battle against an Arcanist force.

It forces me to think on multiple levels before I even start considering any type of 'synergy' benefits my models may give one another.

Oz