Most balanced game size(s)?

[islyfe]

I'm sure some if not all factions and masters are effected by game size for better or for worse.

What do you guys think is the most balanced size game size?

What size requires the most skill in list building and strategy in game?

If there were an official league run by Wyrd what size would the games be?

Is really 30 ss the sweet spot?

[GrottoKnight]

Apparently no one reads the lower topics or doesn't reply. My answer to this can be found in my topic on the same question

[Angus Khan]

Apparently no one reads the lower topics or doesn't reply. My answer to this can be found in my topic on the same question

This was the first I've seen of this thread...

I (along with many other Malifaux players, it seems) prefer 25-35 SS games. Any smaller and there are too few minis, too much larger and the game drags on. So yes, I would say roughly 35 stones is about the "sweet spot."

[Amarel]

I didn't see the earlier post, either, so...

I'm going to agree with Angus Khan on 35ss. 25ss doesn't really give the options needed to many crews (particularly, imo, Masters who start with a low or 0ss cache).

As I have 75ss of Vikki crew, I really want to try that out at some point though - might need to be a weekend game, though .

[nerdelemental]

35.

It's just about all we play now. I'll happily go up or down by 5, but do not like 25 very much and more than 40 gets to be too much.

[GrottoKnight]

My opinion is below. The extra 5ss is a big deal for real VP oriented gaming instead of a kill all. This game is meant to be decided by VPs ,sometimes kill all, and 25-35ss ends up being more kill all 50+ percent of the time. I have played lots at 35 and just feel 40 is more balanced but 45 is a bit much oddly as it is last stage until 2 masters.

I really think that this game shines when you play a little bigger than what most people are sorta creating the standard game to be....30-35 ss.

I think this game is best played and best balanced at 40ss and up. I feel that is when all the schemes and strategies become achievable/stoppable and none are too easy/hard. It also provides more fun interacting as opposed to the smaller game of 30-35ss.

I like the higher range of One master games and actually play one master up to 50ss. I have played two master games and find them extremely fun and all should give it a go.

I plan to use One master in a Two master game next time for fun and see what the extra 10ss can get me.

[Justin]

Malifaux has some serious balance issues depending on the size of game.

Say, for example, you're playing a really big game (45 soul stones+) the dynamics of the strategies change entirely.

So, let's say you draw reconnoiter. In a larger game, you have more models to accomplish it. So this strategy is just inherently easier in larger games with no counter balance for the opponent. Take also slaughter. If you draw slaughter in a large game, your opponent will have more models for you to kill, with no real counter balance for you. Now, you could argue that you have more models to kill their models, but it doesn't really work out that way. Every model your opponent has in slaughter is another resource for them to hide in a corner to deny you your mission. And the larger the game, the less of a disadvantage hiding a model in the corner all game is because it's a smaller percentage of your crew.

Games that are too small have the reverse problem: at 25 ss reconnoiter is nigh impossible for some crews, and slaughter far easier. (although slaughter is pretty much always the hardest strategy in the game)

So, with Malifaux, I'd say 35 soul stones or bust.

Bust, I tell you! BUST!

The only way to make this game playable (and fair) at every level of play would be to totally rework the missions. So, say, reconnoiter could become "Score 4 VPs if you have more models than your opponent in at least 3 quadrants of the board, 2 if you have more models than your opponent in at least 2 quadrants." That way accomplishing the mission is dependent on your opponent's models as well, so varying the game size is less important. Also, it would take more models to accomplish the strategy (since you may need multiple models to hold a quadrant) so the number of quadrants needed went down.

And slaughter...honestly I would just drop. I don't like it.

But I really don't see either of those things happening. *shrug*

But that's me. I'm not really complaining. 35 soul stones is fantastic, and I love this game. And bigger games are tons of fun...just not balanced.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Justin

[GrottoKnight]

Malifaux has some serious balance issues depending on the size of game.

And slaughter...honestly I would just drop. I don't like it.

Excellent observations. Totally agree with Slaughter and never want to play it. In a tourney I am running coming up I removed Slaughter entirely, only used three current and created one strategy.

In this tourney form I am having both players go after the same strategy.

I also tweaked some of the schemes a bit.

This can be read in the Tourney Topics area exactly what I did.

[Justin]

Excellent observations. Totally agree with Slaughter and never want to play it. In a tourney I am running coming up I removed Slaughter entirely, only used three current and created one strategy.

In this tourney form I am having both players go after the same strategy.

I also tweaked some of the schemes a bit.

This can be read in the Tourney Topics area exactly what I did.

I've actually read that. (just went and reread it)

I liked most of your ideas, although it looked like the strategies/schemes you posted were straight out of the book with the errata. I would be interested to know what your idea for a new strategy was and how you would change the current schemes, though.

I also liked that you had people bring two lists and that there was no strength of schedule. Strength of schedule just...isn't fair. It's random. However, you use victory point totals instead of strength of schedule, which is just as random. I mean, you do have to earn those victory points, but your VP totals are going to change depending on who you play. If you play some kid who has never played before first game and wipe him, should you get a better rating than someone who squeaked out a draw against a veteran? I am yet to run a Malifaux tournament (running one tomorrow actually) but when I run 40k tournaments I always resolve draws with painting scores. Which reminds me, I love your idea for the bonus soul stone for a fully painted crew. I hate that so many people totally neglect that aspect of the hobby the second competition rears its ugly head.

The tournament I'm running tomorrow, I'm giving people a 15 ss "side board" similar to what you might see in Magic. We'll see how it works out.

Anyway, yeah, post up that new strategy!

[macgowan]

Doesn't the book say you build armies AFTER picking scenario? Why bother with a sideboard? I REALLY like the idea of tailoring your list to fit a specific scenario or opponent. I plan to run tournaments at my shop starting late April, and here's how I plan to handle it (30 points):

1. The same Master must be used throughout the tournament.

2. Players choose their scenario (but not their opponent) for the first game. No proxies allowed for the first list.

3. Extra 5 minutes between scenario pick and start of play during subsequent rounds for people to build their lists and choose schemes.

4. Up to half the models in a list may be proxies, as long as the player has the card or a printout available for quick reference.

[islyfe]

I feel like painting scores should always be a separate category in tournaments. There plenty of players who never laid a brush on their models and shouldn't receive credit for someone else hard work and skill in painting the player's army. The organizer should have made sure there are so many bonus points throughout the tourney so the chances of a tie are highly unlikely.

[Justin]

Doesn't the book say you build armies AFTER picking scenario? Why bother with a sideboard? I REALLY like the idea of tailoring your list to fit a specific scenario or opponent. I plan to run tournaments at my shop starting late April, and here's how I plan to handle it (30 points):

1. The same Master must be used throughout the tournament.

2. Players choose their scenario (but not their opponent) for the first game. No proxies allowed for the first list.

3. Extra 5 minutes between scenario pick and start of play during subsequent rounds for people to build their lists and choose schemes.

4. Up to half the models in a list may be proxies, as long as the player has the card or a printout available for quick reference.

The fact that you pick your crew after seeing the scenario is precisely why I think a side board is a good idea. Think of card games, like magic. In friendly play, in between games, you can switch cards out of your deck. This is a part of the game, much like switching crews in between scenarios in Malifaux. However, unless you limit the number of models that can be chosen from, the advantage goes to the guy who is willing to bring the entire line of models with him. (and trust me, that guy is out there)

Allowing proxies is one way to displace this effect, but I don't allow proxies unless no official model exists, so...

[Justin]

I feel like painting scores should always be a separate category in tournaments. There plenty of players who never laid a brush on their models and shouldn't receive credit for someone else hard work and skill in painting the player's army. The organizer should have made sure there are so many bonus points throughout the tourney so the chances of a tie are highly unlikely.

Having run tournaments for many years (for different games) I have never found a way to give bonus points to prevent ties that are actually fair. (people give their opponent's zeros on sportsmanship automatically to increase their chances, bonus points for killing leaders is easier to accomplish simply depending on who I paired you with, etc)

So, while some people may never lay a brush to their army, it is impossible to tell who did and didn't, even in a painting competition (unless you watch them paint it) so I just see it as an incentive to make for a more visually enjoyable game for everyone, no matter who painted it.

[macgowan]

I usually split prize if there's a tie, but I like this idea better. Coming from the store's standpoint, having good-looking painted armies on the table is always better for non-playing customers who stop by to watch grown men playing with dolls. Who cares if they pained it themselves, or paid a commission? Mayne that's just the painter-for-hire in me talking though...

[Justin]

I usually split prize if there's a tie, but I like this idea better. Coming from the store's standpoint, having good-looking painted armies on the table is always better for non-playing customers who stop by to watch grown men playing with dolls. Who cares if they pained it themselves, or paid a commission? Mayne that's just the painter-for-hire in me talking though...

That's pretty much my thought on it.

The tournament today went pretty well. I just told everyone to flip randomly for strategies and just ignore slaughter. I also allowed them to spend one soul stone to reflip the strategy they got. (only one soul stone was allowed to be spent this way)

This was agreeable to everyone, and they all agreed it was better than the usual method of flipping strategies.

There was a minor timing issue because, thanks to the order you set up a game of Malifaux, you flip strategy before assembling your crew. So there really isn't a soul stone cache at that point. But nobody noticed, and I just didn't point it out...

Although, if anyone else wants to incorporate this mechanic, just add an additional step after choosing crews that allows a soul stone to be spent to reflip the strategy.

[Amarel]

There was a minor timing issue because, thanks to the order you set up a game of Malifaux, you flip strategy before assembling your crew. So there really isn't a soul stone cache at that point. But nobody noticed, and I just didn't point it out...

Although, if anyone else wants to incorporate this mechanic, just add an additional step after choosing crews that allows a soul stone to be spent to reflip the strategy.

I don't think it needs the extra step - the Master simply has one less Soul Stone to assemble their crew. Nice idea.

[Justin]

I don't think it needs the extra step - the Master simply has one less Soul Stone to assemble their crew. Nice idea.

Hmm, yeah. But the idea is to have it come out of their cache, as that is generally how your spend soul stones. Spending the stones normally assigned to models for an effect seems off to me, but I suppose it could be just fine. However you want to play it. *shrug*