Game Balance

[Justin]

This is a place to discuss game balance. I'm just going to throw out some key words and phrases in random order:

Pandora

Sommer

Broken

Marcus

Rock, Paper, Scissors

Sucks

Discuss.

[Ratty]

My feeling is your always going to have some level of Rock, Paper, Scissors. This is a wargaming if all crews and pieces were equal we would be playing draughts. Any wargame is all about having models that are good in some situation, bad in others. If you cram a crew through of models that all have the same strengths it is always going to win big or lose big. If you put together a crew that is more balanced, it will stand a chance against all comers but might suffer against highly specialised crew. It's something you have to live with. Sommer might not be considered the best Master and I know he has some issues against Hamelin. However he probably has the biggest range of models designed to work with him in the game. Orphelia makes his crew much better. So it's obvious they are trying to balance him with adding minions that compliment him. Marcus has gained a few interesting choices, however a lot of the ones from book 2 aren't out yet. I don't know how viable he is going to be with RN, Shikome and Night Terrors, Guild Hounds, Raptors etc. The other thing with Marcus is though he's not amazing in one on one games, he's actually quite good in multiplayer games where he can take advantages of people leaving models exposed for quick VPs. His Hit and Run tactics work very well. The number of times I've seen someone almost take out a Master to have Marcus run in and get the glory. Pandora can be dealt with if you know what your doing. I've probably played against Pandora more games than any other masters and have only lost once. It's all about knowing when to attack and when to run.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Ratty

[Ratty]

But what I really should say is "The Rules Manual" is not where to fix balance, They try that in 40k and Fantasy and any change in rules for balance reasons will fix balance in one place and unbalance it elsewhere. The best thing for the Rule Manual is to make it as comprehensive and tight as possible. Only that way can you have a rigid framework to work out if a Master is too powerful. Then alter the actual models that need altering.

The only exception to this is the specific schemes as they are less core rules and really more part of the crew list. So they should be considered safe to alter for balance reasons.

[Ratty]

when it comes to schemes I don't mind a scheme being very hard like Som'er's It doesn't matter a lot as he still has an aweful lot of schemes to choose from depending on the situation. The problem comes when a scheme is too easy as that is giving a certain crew practically free VP. I don't think any of the Master Specific Schemes are much easier than the basic schemes so I don't have a issue with any of them.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I think the game goes beyond balanced for me it is more a unique system that allows a diversity of play styles that can overwhelm most players ability to adapt to.

Some masters abilities like Pandora are a lot harder to counter but the whole ability to know your faction you are playing against and strategies allows you to adapt your crew to take on your opponent. For example I usually announce guild so when I hear neverborn I usually run Perdita or ressers outcomes Lady J. Also the lower than average cost of the game allows you to buy the models to do that.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Mr. Bigglesworth

[tadaka]

Over all wyrd has a solid game on there hands. That being said there are some very very bad matchups that are just 0 fun to run in to. I will give 2 examples and I am sure people will disagree. Levi vs guild and Hamlin vs the little green men.

My personal hope is simply this Avatars. I hope that the Avatar forms have an effect that will go a long way to help with shore up some of the worst offenders of the balance. For example. Avatar form for Somer could have an effect called say Large and in charge all Gremlin models are Ht2 while Somer is in play. Your going VS outcasts then probably want to use your Avatar form for Somer. This will let players play a master while Balance is given a small hand on the options that just don't play nice together.

(note I am not holding my breath on this just a hope)

Edited March 5, 2011 by tadaka

[eturns]

It surprises me when people moan about balance as I think Malifaux is potentially one of the best games for addressing this.

Reading the rules you choose your faction and flip for strategy and then you pick your crew. Not many games let you pick your crew/army AFTER you know your objective. So yes you may have master vs master issues but you should be able to get a fair degree around this by picking a list that helps you achieve your objectives.

(please note this is all theoretical as I have only played one game and do only have one master so I can't speak from experience)

[JayBarlekamp]

Over all wyrd has a solid game on there hands. That being said there are some very very bad matchups that are just 0 fun to run in to. I will give 2 examples and I am sure people will disagree. Levi vs guild and Hamlin vs the little green men.

This...

I'll throw another one out there, just about anyone vs the Pandora lists that don't attack and just ping you to death from failed duels. I was so happy when i saw how they changed Pandoras scheme so as to not push her lists in that direction. Those games are extremely boring.

As far as the schemes go, I also don't think it's a balance issue when you compare how difficult some schemes are, I just think it's a missed opportunity to have some of them so difficult that they are never taken. Actually, out of all the master specific schemes, Som'er teeth's is the only one I think needs adjusted. I would gladly take any other master specific scheme (from the new rule book that is). Now, if Som'er teeth triggered come n get it off of his gun too, then it would be worth trying out.

Edited March 5, 2011 by JayBarlekamp

[tenabrae]

My feeling is your always going to have some level of Rock, Paper, Scissors. This is a wargaming if all crews and pieces were equal we would be playing draughts. Any wargame is all about having models that are good in some situation, bad in others. If you cram a crew through of models that all have the same strengths it is always going to win big or lose big. If you put together a crew that is more balanced, it will stand a chance against all comers but might suffer against highly specialised crew.

It's more of a problem as with say Pandora in Malifaux where it's a case of 'awesome vs. all but these very specific couple of builds'. It should be more a case of 'awesome against these couple of specific builds and good otherwise'.

--

re: 'You choose after you know what's going on' ... It's a theoretical discussion at best, a 'guy with most models wins' situation at worst. Not everyone is going to have multiple crews, in fact the less balance there is the less need there is to do so for those players who just want to win (i.e. people who are doing it wrong).

--

Malifaux is balanced enough in most situations, but there are definitely some outliers that still need to be brought back to the middle in both directions.

I think for the most part, card errata and some of the models introduced in Rising Powers show the Wyrd team have their heads in the right space on these issues and it'll all work out in time.

[Darguth]

Considering I feel this thread is at least modestly directed at me, I will respond. However, I leave for a week-long vacation in 6 hours. So that response will have to wait, at least for a little bit.

Until then, I'll be having drunk people throw beads off floats at me and my friends while I become inebriated and join in general revelry in the great Crescent City down the bayou way. Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Edited March 5, 2011 by Darguth

[Rathnard]

I think when you compare Masters purely on who's crew/Master is more likely to kill the other, then there are definitely some imbalances. This is generally the angle people take when they say that, Masters like Marcus and So'mer are not nearly as good as Masters like Lilith and Pandora.

Now if this was a game like Warhammer 40k where killing is pretty much all that matters, then the above assertion would be right - Marcus and So'mer would be terrible, while the likes of Lilith and Pandora would be top-tier masters.

The thing is, winning a game of Malifaux isn't purely about killing your opponents crew. In fact, IIRC there's only two strategies (Contain Power and Slaughter) that require you to actually kill enemy models to get those VPs. The rest are mostly about positioning and interacts. This means that while killing your opponents crew can help you acheive those strategies, a cunning player will be able to use their own crews abilities (Zoraida's slipperyness, So'mers numbers) to acheive their strategy regardless.

So So'mer might have a hard time hurting Hamelin, but it doesn't mean he's unable to acheive his strategy/schemes and win the game.

[Doctor Amos]

You can't create perfectly symetrical masters (and make an interesting game, anyway). The question is if the masters fall within acceptable tollerance for power.

[tadaka]

You are right killing is not the only goal but balance can be jacked up for other reasons then just I cant kill the other guy.

Take my issue with levi vs guild.

I love levi I have a ton of models for him. My local playgroup is dreamer and guild guild and more guild.

Others may disagree but dreamer and guild can crush levi with out even trying. Basicly I get to spend every game with out a master. I can move on an play other crews (and I have). But it bugs me to no end that I cant play the master I want because vs those 2 crews levi gets his face smashed in (Levi not the crew). The change/nurf call it what you like made this all the worse.

IMHO most players attach them selves to a master more so then a faction. My choice is invalid because the other local players play the paper to my rock. This is not fun for me.

This is why my hope is that Avatar options give me another way to play levi so when I fight those crews I can play the master I want instead of balance saying nope sucks to be you.

[Tiny]

out of curiosity what is your standard list for levy and what are their standard lists ?

[tadaka]

I dont have a standard levi list. I have all most every model he can use.

The norm for guild is perdita, 2 austringers and nino + whatever.

Nino and austringers are murder for levi/waif. You cant give them cover you cant hide them. You can basicly put them in a sold rock and they will still get shot and killed.

For chomp because levi and waifs can not start more then 6 inches apart in a turn chomp lands in the middle and just crushes them and can do so from a pritty solid distance away. The change is what made this one suck bad. You uses to be able to spread out levi and waifs more to try and live now its just hulk smash.

[JayBarlekamp]

Just to play devil's advocate a little Rathnard, Is it OK that certain crews may as well concede if contain power is flipped? Hamelin can just rush up the board and be untouchable for the most part. Also, with the way he can make things insignificant, even if you bring warpigs, they likely won't be able to target him after turn 2.

Per the rules manual, if you are playing an official tournament, or flip a shared strategy, no reflip. Then the Som'er teeth player is already at a max of 4 points for the game.

Note, this is theoretical and not a complaint. It was just a situation that may come up. Even playing Gremlins, I'm rather indifferent to the situation, but for a tournament it could be a problem and not one shared by any other Master.

[tadaka]

Per the rules manual, if you are playing an official tournament, or flip a shared strategy, no reflip. Then the Som'er teeth player is already at a max of 4 points for the game.

IMHO I would like to see the option to allways reflip. Some goals are just borderline unable to be done at all.

[JayBarlekamp]

yeah I don't see why a shared strategy couldn't turn into a bidding war. player A wants to reflip, he burns a stone. player B likes the shared strategy and burns a stone to stop the reflip. I goes back and forth until neither wants to spend a stone.

[Justin]

Considering I feel this thread is at least modestly directed at me, I will respond. However, I leave for a week-long vacation in 6 hours. So that response will have to wait, at least for a little bit.

Until then, I'll be having drunk people throw beads off floats at me and my friends while I become inebriated and join in general revelry in the great Crescent City down the bayou way. Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Well, I thought it would be an interesting discussion to read. And it looked like there were people willing to discuss it, so...thread!

I think when you compare Masters purely on who's crew/Master is more likely to kill the other, then there are definitely some imbalances. This is generally the angle people take when they say that, Masters like Marcus and So'mer are not nearly as good as Masters like Lilith and Pandora.

Now if this was a game like Warhammer 40k where killing is pretty much all that matters, then the above assertion would be right - Marcus and So'mer would be terrible, while the likes of Lilith and Pandora would be top-tier masters.

The thing is, winning a game of Malifaux isn't purely about killing your opponents crew. In fact, IIRC there's only two strategies (Contain Power and Slaughter) that require you to actually kill enemy models to get those VPs. The rest are mostly about positioning and interacts. This means that while killing your opponents crew can help you acheive those strategies, a cunning player will be able to use their own crews abilities (Zoraida's slipperyness, So'mers numbers) to acheive their strategy regardless.

So So'mer might have a hard time hurting Hamelin, but it doesn't mean he's unable to acheive his strategy/schemes and win the game.

Yes, but in a game with a combat mechanic, killing is always going to be a huge part of strategy.

If you kill all of your opponent's models, they're going to have a whole lot of trouble accomplishing reconnoiter, or claim jump, or, well, anything.

[tenabrae]

Indeed, there's not much you can do to achieve your strats and schemes when you're alpha striked or not really in control of your own models.

Tadakas Levi example is a perfect one for where theory and reality clash, his local meta isn't fun for him because Levi is for the most part unfieldable against a nino/austringer environment. Not that I think one bad match up is a reason to rebalance it's just an unfortunate situation in this case, but it does highlight the issue.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Keep in kind this game is designed with the idea that you likely have more than one crew for each faction. Yes this can give the advantage to the player who has the resources to buy multiple starter sets. At most anyone needs is 2 starter sets and a few extra clashes from just one faction to be able to play competitively.

The whole Levi vs guild example should not be given as an example of pour design it should be shown as an example of how even a strong crew can be countered. The only negative criticism is that one player can be overwhelmed if they play a crew against its anti crew and maybe discouraged by this. I love playing Lady J but she isn't very effective when I play against a non resser crew so I have Perdita to fall back on. This is more a player preference issue not an example of broken system.

The cost of this game compared to other war games makes it more affordable to have options for your crew.

I have spent more money on a 1500 point 40k gw list than I have to buy all the guild models and the rules.

Side note shadow rule has lessened Nino's strength now he can no longer sit on a highest point and see over all terrain. However Austringer are just as good. As a guild player the lessen of Nino's capacity is loss for me but is a balancing decision that I support because it kind of was a cheese factor I know I took advantage of.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Mr. Bigglesworth

[tadaka]

I am not a large fan of the idea that some one will have multiple masters from the same faction. I know many people who do that and just as many who have a grab bag of masters from multiple factions. The idea that people will be a part of a faction has IMHO not worked out all that well and people are more attached to masters. But that being said the addition of Hamlin will finally give me a second outcast master so I have an option for that environment. I simply don't like any other outcasts.

Another side point is that a lot of tournaments don't let people run more then one master. This is because of the idea that more money = advantage that is common. I will say I don't agree with it but this game has to be played by a lot of different people.

[Justin]

Just to expand on some points.

Killing

I just want to look at Rath's example of 40k as a game that is 100% about killing your opponent's models. And she is absolutely correct, it is. But 2 out of the 3 missions in 40k are objective based. Only 1 is directly about killing the opponent. So why is 40k 100% about killing the opponent and not 66.6% about holding objectives and 33.3% about killing the opponent? The answer is simple: because an opponent can not hold an objective if he is dead. And making him dead is the only way to get him off the objective.

Malifaux really isn't all that different. Looking at the core encounter chart (which I feel we must look at if we are talking about balance) 1 out of 5 strategies is about killing, 4 out of 5 are about some sort of area control. But in Malifaux since both people flip a separate strategy, the odds of at least one player flipping the kill strategy is about 2/5. Which is actually higher than 40k. And since preventing an opponent's VP is equally valuable to gaining your own, it doesn't really matter which player flips it. As to the 4 area control objectives, they have the same "problem" (I use quotations because I don't really think it's a problem, but we'll get to that later) as 40k. An opponent can't hold an objective if he's dead, and making him dead is the easiest way to keep him from holding an objective.

All that said, I do think there is less emphasis in Malifaux on just going for your opponent's throat than in 40k, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the strategies or schemes. It's the models. In Malifaux you can lure, bury, etc your opponent off of an objective as well as killing him. You can summon/place your own models onto objectives. There simply aren't many (frickin lash) abilities in 40k that do this. So Malifaux is slightly less about pure bloodshed, but I think that comes down to the individual models. However, being less about sheer killing than 40k is like saying "there is less water here than in the ocean." If 40k is 100% about killing then Malifaux probably ranges between 80 to 100 depending on which crews are being used.

Also, I have no real issue with miniatures games being about killing your opponent. It's what I'm there to do. If I didn't enjoy that aspect, I wouldn't play. However, it is still nice to have varying objectives, because it changes how people play. Which models they go for, which models they try to keep alive, which turn they choose to strike on, etc. They may not run straight at each other, but ultimately the game is usually decided on something taking wounds.

Encounter Charts

Finally I want to talk about Sommer vs. Hammelin in Contain Power. I actually have absolutely no problem with this. The way I see it: the core encounter chart is about balance. A single master should be entirely capable of achieving each one of those objectives against any other master in the game. (although some masters may certainly have a disadvantage on one of them, hopefully they have an advantage on another) This is the chart you flip on if you haven't played before, if you're in a competitive environment, or if you just generally want a nice, balanced game.

The expanded encounter chart is there for those people who have played the core encounter chart to death and want some variation. But variation comes at the price of balance, as not every permutation could possibly be balanced for every master combination. Basically, they're whacky, they're fun, and they're available if you're bored. But balance is not the concern. If I were playing Sommer and I was playing against an opponent who I knew had Hammelin or who I had no idea which masters they had, I would play on the core encounter chart. And hopefully there is no chance of getting that match in a tourney because a tournament organizer really should be picking strategies off of the core chart.

Match Ups

As has been stated, I think the biggest balance issue this game has is in individual bad match ups. And I know the counter point to this is two fold:

1) You pick crews after knowing strategy and opponent's faction

2) All mini games have a rock, paper, scissors element

While both of these are true, I think there are still problems.

Although all miniatures games do (and should) have a rock, paper, scissors element I think it should not create a situation where you have almost no hope of winning. I guess to summarize: scissors should beat paper about 70% of the time, and scissors should beat rock about 30% of the time. I feel some of the bad match ups in Malifaux go beyond the acceptable range of, "this will be a tough fight" and fall into "I have no idea how to win here."

And although you do pick your crew after knowing the strategies, it helps you in no way with a bad match up against a certain master. Knowing their faction may not tell you the master. And finally, most importantly, not everyone has two masters to choose from. Although it is relatively cheap to pick up a second I don't think you can both congratulate a game for being cheap and requiring few models and require players to get two armies to play the game in a realistic environment.

The biggest issue, I think, is beginners. If two friends start playing and they happen to pick up two crews which are a terrible match up, do you think they will play more than two or three games? I'm sure it's happened, but you rarely here from people who vote with their feet.

All that said, there have been huge improvements in this area since rising powers. The gremlins can be downright competitive, I think Marcus is helped in big ways by the lawyer and the raptors and in general individual masters have better tools to make them more diverse. So although this is an issue and I feel we should not deny it, it is also very obviously improving. And I also want to make this point: since the release of the rules manual which condensed the errata, it is the only majorissue. Which makes Malifaux, in my opinion, leaps and bounds ahead of most other games.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Justin

[Wasp]

My friend and I startet a couple of month ago with malifaux. So I am a realy noob. My first crew was the showgirls box, my friend startet with Sonnia Criid.

The first games suck...cast a spell...for nothing, Sonnia negates and so on, it starts to get frustrating. Then we buy our next crews, Dreamer and Nico. That works better, but our reason to buy Malifaux as a second game was broken. The idea behind, cheap game with a few minis fails. You must have a big range of minis to deal with the other crews and the different tactics. In Malifaux I cant say "I am a arcanist player" I must say "I am a arcanist player when the tactic worth it" thats a real big different to other games. That makes to feel the game imbalanced some times.

For me the frustrating thing in malifaux are these "anti" crews from the Guild. Very cheap minis with the sideefect, that they negate the things that defined the opposing crews. Magic/Melee/Summon Undead. That realy makes the game frustrating.

Okay, it can be only to me, I am new and I am more a wargames player (Flames of war) then skirmish fantasy games. But Malifaux its real different to other tabletop. Sometimes inovativ (Cards / no Dice) sometimes "imbalanced" when you have only a small or only one crew with never can handle every tactic or opposing crews.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I love the guild but the anti capacity does not mean I now have absolute advantage believe me Lady J does not mean I am going to wipe the floor of any lesser crew bit I am going to be better prepared. Perdita and Ortegas would probably still be fine against a lesser army.

The big difference to 40k is the activation is designed to max kill during a models activation in malifaux there are plenty of schemes or actions available that do no damage. Unlike 40k and other games you can wipe me off the board but I can still win. This game is far less about killing every model but specific models might be your Target.