Game Balance

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

If you purchase more models than you use willingly, congratulations. I do not consider it good game design to semi-force someone to buy more models than they will ever use at once.

Starting off an automatic 4 VPs behind your opponent isn't really a good thing, and honestly, unless you were playing an Ophelia gunline and/or knew your opponent was going to run Hamelin, your only real source of blasts is likely to be Pere.

That is one strategy out of how many that it would be that way. That is not a sign of imbalance because I can spend a ss to refill. Still chance I can flip it again, but I have an out.

[Koschai]

If your only going to buy the exact number of miniatures required to play the game and no more you might as well buy a board game.

I know that's not exactly what you were saying and I'm taking your statement to the extreme but wanted to note that miniature wargames are all about the collecting.

For the record I still agree with both sides in this. Balance at master level would be preferable but not practical. Starter sets balanced so they really are "starter" sets would have been a better bet but again questionablea s to practicality given faction overview. The different gang styles encourage you to focus on masters rather than factions but the odds are you will own more than one and the game clocks in significantly cheaper than the competition so it's really not that big a deal. If you play tournament you will have to pick up a few more models. Thats not uncommon. See agree with both sides.

The debate here seems to boil down to both sides agreeing on all facts just disagreeing on whether they like it that way.

[Wasp]

So, after some talking with some members from this nice forum I think why my fist feeling was the game would be a little bit imbalanced.

My favorit game FoW have a hugh number off core rules, they belongs to all player, regardles what they play. Only a very few rules are for the different Nations nor more then a few sides in over hundred of the Rulebook.

In Malifaux I have only a few core rules and many many special rules deliverd by the Mini´s. But these extra set of rules belongs only to that player who field the mini. When I have a greater range of minis I have a greater access to more rules, and that give´s me an advantage over other players. So I expand my set of rules (that goes on with the number of Minis I own) to be more flexible, more competitive to meet the requirements of the Tactics.

I wouldn´t say that you must own more then one Master or a reale big range of Minis but it should help a lot.

[Wodschow]

Didn't really intend to get involved in this discussion at all.. But..

...

...

My Warhammer army has 2 "leftover" Ogres. My Space Marine army is even worse--there's not a single model that I have bought that isn't used in the standard tournament list.

Perhaps I'm just frugal with my purchases, but I don't see the point in buying models "just in case." There are some that I buy specifically to paint, but that is very different from my playable forces.

Seriously?!

I don't know anyone who does like this..

So when you decide to play an army in a GW game you plan the entire list out ahead, buy, build and paint it never again to change anything?

You never get tired of playing the exact same list over and over?

You never want to try out other models available to your army?

What do you do if the list you decided upon actually suck?

How do you adapt to new codices?

Really.. I never met anyone who does like this..

Edit:

It's not really meant offensive or anything, but if this is truly how you approach the games all the power to you and I guess that I do understand your thoughts on Malifaux..

Edited March 11, 2011 by Wodschow

[Q'iq'el]

If you purchase more models than you use willingly, congratulations. I do not consider it good game design to semi-force someone to buy more models than they will ever use at once.

I think you greatly exaggerate the situation. You can play with the starter box for the rest of your life if you chose so and it doesn't bore you. Since your opponents will have to reduce their crews to 18 or 20 points as well, there's little issue with being in disadvantage here.

There's no design that would please everyone possible here. As a player, you may like the game and be flexible about your crew composition, slowly (or quickly) building up your collection, or you may choose to be inflexible and ultimately end up playing some different system that suits you better. That is inevitable. But as far as the miniature games go, the competition usually requires you to spend much more money and time on the hobby anyway.

[Fulgrima]

This thread is no longer talking about balance in anyway just about how many models people think it is appropirate to play which is nothing to do with the balance of the game. As an unbalanced model/faction would still be unbalanced if you owned all of the other models.

[Uncle]

I know that's not exactly what you were saying and I'm taking your statement to the extreme but wanted to note that miniature wargames are all about the collecting.

No, they totally aren't. I got caught up in that at one point in my life and realized that I had hundreds, if not thousands, of models that I never intended to even paint, let alone use. Now, I tend to be rather careful in my purchases.

I don't know anyone who does like this.

Hi, my name's JPRoth1980. How're you?

So when you decide to play an army in a GW game you plan the entire list out ahead, buy, build and paint it never again to change anything?

Yep, and it usually takes about a year to do. I buy one unit, I paint it. Then I buy another unit, and so on. I never field unpainted models, ever.

You never get tired of playing the exact same list over and over?

Nope. Admittedly, I've had to make a few tweaks over the years, as when I acquired a handful of Ironguts and 2 Scraplaunchers back when 8th was coming out, but that's it.

You never want to try out other models available to your army?

You do? Seriously, there's very little point in "trying out" anything. How a unit performs can be very easily extrapolated through raw numerical data as opposed to "practical" experience, which is far more apt to be flawed.

Partly, too, I build an army for a certain "feel." Once I've acheived said feel and have an effective list, why would I want to change it? I do not have to luxury of playing multiple times a week, nor do I play against the same opponents constantly.

What do you do if the list you decided upon actually suck?

I honestly wouldn't know. I've never had that happen to me, ever since the days of 2nd Edition.

How do you adapt to new codices?

There is darned little to adapt to, frankly. I have yet to see any new and sparkly toys that requires a major shift in how I build my armies. True, perhaps over a few years, a few things might need to be changed, but that is very different than buying a huge collection "to have options."

It's not really meant offensive or anything, but if this is truly how you approach the games all the power to you and I guess that I do understand your thoughts on Malifaux.

Oh, no offense taken at all. Like I said, since the hallowed days of 2nd where I was quite literally a kid in the proverbial candystore (that sentence makes sense, promise!), I've schooled myself to make sensible purchases. With Malifaux, "game balance" is saying that I need to buy far more than I'll ever use in a game, and that just doesn't sit well with me at all.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

No, they totally aren't. I got caught up in that at one point in my life and realized that I had hundreds, if not thousands, of models that I never intended to even paint, let alone use. Now, I tend to be rather careful in my purchases.

Hi, my name's JPRoth1980. How're you?

Lmao

Yep, and it usually takes about a year to do. I buy one unit, I paint it. Then I buy another unit, and so on. I never field unpainted models, ever.

Nope. Admittedly, I've had to make a few tweaks over the years, as when I acquired a handful of Ironguts and 2 Scraplaunchers back when 8th was coming out, but that's it.

You do? Seriously, there's very little point in "trying out" anything. How a unit performs can be very easily extrapolated through raw numerical data as opposed to "practical" experience, which is far more apt to be flawed.

Partly, too, I build an army for a certain "feel." Once I've acheived said feel and have an effective list, why would I want to change it? I do not have to luxury of playing multiple times a week, nor do I play against the same opponents constantly.

I honestly wouldn't know. I've never had that happen to me, ever since the days of 2nd Edition.

There is darned little to adapt to, frankly. I have yet to see any new and sparkly toys that requires a major shift in how I build my armies. True, perhaps over a few years, a few things might need to be changed, but that is very different than buying a huge collection "to have options."

Oh, no offense taken at all. Like I said, since the hallowed days of 2nd where I was quite literally a kid in the proverbial candystore (that sentence makes sense, promise!), I've schooled myself to make sensible purchases. With Malifaux, "game balance" is saying that I need to buy far more than I'll ever use in a game, and that just doesn't sit well with me at all.

That puts all your previous posts into a completely understandable perspective.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Well JPRoth from what you have posted I would suggest purchasing a Lilith crew with a couple of young neph's and a Blood Shaman. This crew seems to have the tools to compete in any strategy and its biggest weakness is its lack of range weapons which means you will have to know how to use the terrain to your advantage.

Aside from that I don't what else to say besides I think you and me have a different approach to miniature gaming.(Not saying my way is better, just different)

[Koschai]

No, they totally aren't. I got caught up in that at one point in my life and realized that I had hundreds, if not thousands, of models that I never intended to even paint, let alone use. Now, I tend to be rather careful in my purchases.

Fair enough. I guess we have different hobbies then. For me it's about more than just a game (otherwise I'd be playing board games). Then again I do have rather a lot of models...

13k points of Chaos for W40k (spread over 3 codexes)

6k Tyranids for W40k

3 fleets for Uncharted Seas (2 are over 1k in points)

1 fleet for Firestorm Armada (over 1k in points)

a handful of 15mm romans ...and now about to start Malifaux!

[Buhallin]

You should at least acknowledge that your particular situation and view is, to say the least, somewhat uncommon? To the point of near-uniqueness?

You may consider a system which makes you buy unwanted models bad design. I consider any system which is built to accommodate a profile which fits less than 1 in 100 miniature gamers to be INCREDIBLY bad design.

But even then, there's a really, REALLY big difference between "Something I don't like because it doesn't fit the way I want play" and objectively bad game design.

[elril]

Well JPRoth from what you have posted I would suggest purchasing a Lilith crew with a couple of young neph's and a Blood Shaman. This crew seems to have the tools to compete in any strategy and its biggest weakness is its lack of range weapons which means you will have to know how to use the terrain to your advantage.

Aside from that I don't what else to say besides I think you and me have a different approach to miniature gaming.(Not saying my way is better, just different)

JPRoth's point is that you should be able to take your example of a Lilith crew and it should be applicable to any master. One of the reason this argument has shaped that way is that JP's viewpoint of model collecting is rather rare and damn near unique on the forum. People invested enough to argue tend to be more of the "need more stuff" mindset.

I could and would argue that you can build a take any comer's list with any master, even gob's vs Hamelin (I did it last night and am tempted to try it). Different strategy's and schemes would provide varying amounts of challenge and tactics, but isn't that the point of having different scenarios? If you play one list, one way you have defined yourself as either a rock, a scissor, or a paper. Change how you play your list and see how sharp your rock can get?

[Murphy'sLawyer]

JPRoth's point is that you should be able to take your example of a Lilith crew and it should be applicable to any master. One of the reason this argument has shaped that way is that JP's viewpoint of model collecting is rather rare and damn near unique on the forum. People invested enough to argue tend to be more of the "need more stuff" mindset.

I could and would argue that you can build a take any comer's list with any master, even gob's vs Hamelin (I did it last night and am tempted to try it). Different strategy's and schemes would provide varying amounts of challenge and tactics, but isn't that the point of having different scenarios? If you play one list, one way you have defined yourself as either a rock, a scissor, or a paper. Change how you play your list and see how sharp your rock can get?

I would agree with most of your post, even though I know Lilith's weaknesses and know how to defeat her, so I don't personally consider her OP. But yes you could do it with any master, Lilith just seems to be the most brought up option on the forums for an "all comers" caster.

But yes he does have a different approach to miniatures than most so I thought I'd throw him a bone instead of trying to change his opinion.

[Ratty]

Didn't really intend to get involved in this discussion at all.. But..

Seriously?!

I don't know anyone who does like this..

So when you decide to play an army in a GW game you plan the entire list out ahead, buy, build and paint it never again to change anything?

You never get tired of playing the exact same list over and over?

You never want to try out other models available to your army?

What do you do if the list you decided upon actually suck?

How do you adapt to new codices?

Really.. I never met anyone who does like this..

Edit:

It's not really meant offensive or anything, but if this is truly how you approach the games all the power to you and I guess that I do understand your thoughts on Malifaux..

No your right, how can he complain about having 2 masters when he has already admitted to having a Goblin army and an Ogre army for Warhammer. That's going to be a whole lot of models he can only use 50% of the time. So given that how can he complain about having 20 odd models only 6 or 7 can be used at a time. In Necromunda he has Spyrers and Esher, so that's 2 lot of models that can't be used at the same time. And even then, Necromunda is a campaign system. Your models change every game, get new equipment, weapons, die. How can you have a set list for Necromunda?

[Pipeline]

this thread is too damn long.

[micahwc]

Lillith's "weakness" is her willpower of 6, which is hardly weak. Her lack of range is an inconvenience mitigated by her usual crew's speed.

[Lucidicide]

No your right, how can he complain about having 2 masters when he has already admitted to having a Goblin army and an Ogre army for Warhammer. That's going to be a whole lot of models he can only use 50% of the time. So given that how can he complain about having 20 odd models only 6 or 7 can be used at a time. In Necromunda he has Spyrers and Esher, so that's 2 lot of models that can't be used at the same time. And even then, Necromunda is a campaign system. Your models change every game, get new equipment, weapons, die. How can you have a set list for Necromunda?

Even if he is being hypocritical, that doesn't necessarily make his arguments less valid.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Lillith's "weakness" is her willpower of 6, which is hardly weak. Her lack of range is an inconvenience mitigated by her usual crew's speed.

It is also a straight forward predictable crew that can lead many players to make mistakes, like thinking killing off your opponent is more important than VPs.

I know Lilith's crew is powerful, I am a Neverborn player, but as one I also know she and her crew are not impervious to other well designed crews.(I will admit her Box is one great example of a well designed crew straight from the box, but any caster can build one with a little thought and money.)

But we are getting off topic, so let's just say yes at first glance some models appear OP when compared to others when it is looked at in a vacuum. Heck when this game first came out most players complained that Pandora was too weak because on paper she seemed to lack any real power house attacks. Anyone care to say that now?

Edited March 11, 2011 by Murphy'sLawyer

[Phalanx]

Even if he is being hypocritical, that doesn't necessarily make his arguments less valid.

You mean that the game should have been designed so that you only ever need one master and another 5-10 models and that's it? Never mind that getting a second master and another couple of models isn't exactly a huge investment, but a game where people only ever need to spend around $50 isn't exactly very good business sense (at least from what I can see; I'm not an economics kind of person). Something people have to remember is that as much as we love this game Wyrd is still a business and because it's a business the game requires some sort of way to get people to buy more models. Warhammer has you field large regiments of cheap troops, 40K has cheap transports that give your army a big advantage and small points per model, and warmachine has expensive metals and dual list tournaments. In Malifaux it's the ability to design your list after you discover your victory conditions (which is also good in game terms because it allows for more strategic planning with your army). Perhaps some people dislike the fact that you can't just buy a single starter and have an army that will rock any army out there, but Wyrd wouldn't exactly be in business for very long if there wasn't a reason to buy more models beyond the starter. Perhaps some people don't like it, but personally I enjoy the way Wyrd has done the game and the fact that it encourages people to buy more models and help Wyrd stay in business is a good thing (unless you don't like Malifaux).

[Lucidicide]

You mean that the game should have been designed so that you only ever need one master and another 5-10 models and that's it? Never mind that getting a second master and another couple of models isn't exactly a huge investment, but a game where people only ever need to spend around $50 isn't exactly very good business sense (at least from what I can see; I'm not an economics kind of person). Something people have to remember is that as much as we love this game Wyrd is still a business and because it's a business the game requires some sort of way to get people to buy more models. Warhammer has you field large regiments of cheap troops, 40K has cheap transports that give your army a big advantage and small points per model, and warmachine has expensive metals and dual list tournaments. In Malifaux it's the ability to design your list after you discover your victory conditions (which is also good in game terms because it allows for more strategic planning with your army). Perhaps some people dislike the fact that you can't just buy a single starter and have an army that will rock any army out there, but Wyrd wouldn't exactly be in business for very long if there wasn't a reason to buy more models beyond the starter. Perhaps some people don't like it, but personally I enjoy the way Wyrd has done the game and the fact that it encourages people to buy more models and help Wyrd stay in business is a good thing (unless you don't like Malifaux).

I don't mean anything other than what I said. I agree that Malifaux's ability to design your list after you know your victory conditions not only makes sense but works really well. I have no problem with it at all, as evidenced by my multiple factions and masters, being a henchman, and promoting the game when I can.

My post was more about the fact that you don't make someone's argument invalid simply by pointing out that he is being hypocritical. The fact that he contains multiple armies for a game doesn't mean he can't make an argument about how that's not the ideal solution.

The thread just seemed to be going off the argument and onto the person making the argument.

[Buhallin]

Even if he is being hypocritical, that doesn't necessarily make his arguments less valid.

It calls the honesty of those arguments into question. Honestly, anyone who can say they haven't changed an army since 2nd Ed 40K raises my BS flag pretty much instantly.

But even ignoring that potential, I'm still rather nonplussed by the whole basis for the argument. What if I were to argue that I HATE storing models - they take up a huge amount of space, they're a pain to move to games, and especially in Malifaux they're really irrelevant to the game as played. Wyrd should have just done the entire game with tokens - 30/40/50mm bases with appropriate art in the center. Game would play just the same, and a game that requires me to purchase moving containers is badly designed. (Incidentally, the costs to the player at that point would be so trivial that even JP shouldn't mind buying everything out there)

Certainly a valid argument, but should it carry any weight in the discussion? At some point you have to just look at someone's opinions and go "Well, that's fine, you're obviously entitled to your beliefs, but they're so far off of what the game IS that they really aren't relevant to the discussion." Not because he disagrees or has a view, but because that view is so divergent from the game, and so uncommonly held, that it doesn't really contribute to the conversation. At the very least, it shouldn't generate ten pages worth of one-sided debate.

[Lucidicide]

Certainly a valid argument, but should it carry any weight in the discussion? At some point you have to just look at someone's opinions and go "Well, that's fine, you're obviously entitled to your beliefs, but they're so far off of what the game IS that they really aren't relevant to the discussion." Not because he disagrees or has a view, but because that view is so divergent from the game, and so uncommonly held, that it doesn't really contribute to the conversation. At the very least, it shouldn't generate ten pages worth of one-sided debate.

Fair enough.

[Uncle]

No your right, how can he complain about having 2 masters when he has already admitted to having a Goblin army and an Ogre army for Warhammer. That's going to be a whole lot of models he can only use 50% of the time. So given that how can he complain about having 20 odd models only 6 or 7 can be used at a time. In Necromunda he has Spyrers and Esher, so that's 2 lot of models that can't be used at the same time. And even then, Necromunda is a campaign system. Your models change every game, get new equipment, weapons, die. How can you have a set list for Necromunda?

For starters, there are two Warhammer players in my household. "My" Goblin army is actually "my wife's."

Secondly, there is a substantial difference between having 2 completely different 2500 point armies and having a single 5000 point army. The closest thing to compare this to in Malifaux would be having, say, two crews from different factions.

And as far as Necromunda goes, there's really not much change that a Spyrer gang can undergo. At all. So there's the answer there. I despise the concept of single-campaign models. Even with the Escher, I mentioned that during the 2nd Edition days, I was a kid in the proverbial candy store. It's been how many years since Necromunda's come out?

It calls the honesty of those arguments into question. Honestly, anyone who can say they haven't changed an army since 2nd Ed 40K raises my BS flag pretty much instantly.

In Second Edition, I played a Space Wolf army that, from the moment of its completion, didn't change one bit. In Third, I switched over to Orks and played a Kult of Speed list that, again, didn't switch from the moment it was complete (and also only lost a handful of games locally, go figure--I'm not a Big Tourney sort of guy). I didn't play in 4th Edition, and in fifth, I am in the process of painting up a Marine force.

The army I played changed from edition to edition, but the composition of the army did not.

But even ignoring that potential, I'm still rather nonplussed by the whole basis for the argument. What if I were to argue that I HATE storing models - they take up a huge amount of space, they're a pain to move to games, and especially in Malifaux they're really irrelevant to the game as played. Wyrd should have just done the entire game with tokens - 30/40/50mm bases with appropriate art in the center. Game would play just the same, and a game that requires me to purchase moving containers is badly designed. (Incidentally, the costs to the player at that point would be so trivial that even JP shouldn't mind buying everything out there)

People keep trying to reduce my argument to absurdities, and it makes me chuckle. Here's the thing: right now, with the system Wyrd has come up with, any egregious matchups or underpowered Masters can be brushed aside by "Well, use another Master in that situation!" That is lazy design, and it compounds onto the gotta catch 'em all nature of the system that, as mentioned, I find distasteful.

[SuicideCommando]

this thread is too damn long.

[Buhallin]

People keep trying to reduce my argument to absurdities, and it makes me chuckle. Here's the thing: right now, with the system Wyrd has come up with, any egregious matchups or underpowered Masters can be brushed aside by "Well, use another Master in that situation!" That is lazy design, and it compounds onto the gotta catch 'em all nature of the system that, as mentioned, I find distasteful.

That's the problem, though. For the vast majority of minis gamers, your argument IS absurd. The idea that the games should use tokens rather than minis is no less absurd - tokens would leave the game part of Malifaux entirely intact. You could easily play WHFB with nothing but movement trays and a model count track.

But that was the point. The idea of using tokens instead of minis is completely outside the mainstream argument. The idea that you should never buy a single model you don't use every time you play is equally fringe. You've expressed your fringe point - we get it. But it's honestly not relevant to the game. And given that in sixteen pages not a single person has stepped up and said "I agree! Owning any models I can't use every game sucks!" might indicate that the change your suggesting may not be good for the game or the community, no matter how much it might fit your odd personal preferences.

At this point, everyone knows how you feel about it. Why not show at least a little self-awareness about the uniqueness of your views, acknowledge that you've staked your odd flag in the empty plain for everyone to see, and let the discussion move on? (Cue the "You're the one who keeps bringing it up" response).