Game Balance

[Hookers]

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.

there's actually not a big difference at all. since you want to focus on the masters for balance anyway, having two masters could easily be seen as having two armies, with the bonus of being able to share models. a giant is about the only thing you can share between goblins and ogres.

if you play warhammer with the same list every time you will be at a disadvantage. hands down. you will run into armies that you would not be able to beat if a 5 year old were playing them. the difference is that is how gw intended it to be. the game is designed around a competitive system where you do your best guess, or bring the most balanced force you can think of, and hope you never throw scissors against rock. malifaux is designed where in a competitive environment you can definitely run into rock, paper, scissors and have a bad matchup but if you choose to own more than one master you mitigate that substantially. you can make a worse case scenario for yourself where you essentially both throw rock and play it out from there. if you are playing competitively there is nothing more you could ask for, and it is great game design.

if you are not playing competitively then this thread does not matter at all because as has been said all you have to do is be nice, and look at your pretty models which works equally well in every game system ever made and does not even require rules.

if find it ironic that you have this position that "imperfect balance with every master is bad design, and i don't want to have to buy more than i can play with" when your fantasy armies are ogres and goblins which are historically the weakest factions. if i started off playing ogres i would think whfb is the worst game ever made. if you show up to a tournament with pretty much any given ogre list you will not have a chance against 90% of lists you face. you will probably only beat the O&G players.

you can certainly choose to play malifaux like that as well, but you are deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage and will be hard pressed to find any sympathy. malifaux's design is more expansive and open than GW's which gives you the option to play it like a GW game, but lets players go beyond that if they choose.

you can stick to one master, one list, and one set of models that exactly equal 35 pts if you want, which will essentially make malifaux play like any other game out there. the problems that exist with balance in every other game will come up in the exact same way. but the designers of malifaux have fixed those balance issues by letting you pick who you want to play after you know what you are trying to do.

[Uncle]

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.

Actually, it's been brought up by others. I've just caught the most flak.

And, of course, you're again trying to reduce my argument to absurdities. I do not like spending more money on a game than I need to, and feel that being told that I need two or three times the models I want to play is an example of shoddy balance.

Is it a good thing that the starter sets are so unbalanced, or that there are terrible matchups in the game?

I'd like to mention that I agree (in theory) with JPRoth regarding a desire for a reasonable amount of balance at the master level. While the game is meant to be played at a faction level, it would be nice to allow players who only like specific crews to have a reasonable shot at winning.

JPRoth keeps bashing on the idea that you might have to own 20 or 30 models, but only use 8 in a given game. I know there are people who just buy a specific army and play just that army with no variation, but I find that gets repetitive quickly, even if I'm playing against different opponents. This issue doesn't resonate with me because I ALWAYS have more models than I need for just one army. I'm also not sure how someone who plays multiple factions can find this annoying, since by definition you can't use half the models you own in any game.

Hey, look, Buhallin, you admitted that there were people like me out there! Funny, innit?

1) I never want to sit down to an equal point game, look across the table and know I have lost.

2) Even in a poor match-up, the game should still be fun.

3) I am disappointed to have excellent models who never see the table because they are not on par with other models.

This is just a newbie's opinion but it seems like there's practically no way Nicodem could ever compete against the Ortegas. No matter what the strategy or schemes are the Ortegas seem so overpowered that they can crush Nicodem 10 times out of 10.

I know that's how I feel when I sit down with a levi crew vs the Ortegas/dreamer. I know every game I have to at the very least play with out a master at all. Not to say I have never won but I have to greatly outplay or get lucky as hell to even have a chance.

Then per the discussion here Malifaux equally is not balanced at the gang level. You can put together a gang that given the right objectives will be unstoppable vs certain other gangs and unwinnable if you happen to get unlucky and face down something designed to stop you.

Now, I know you're going to try to say that we were talking about my dislike of needing more than one crew and spending money on models that will rarely, if ever, see play. My counterargument is as follows:

That situation is intrinsically tied into the imbalance between masters. Fix the balance, and the economic issue settles itself.

[Buhallin]

Hey, look, Buhallin, you admitted that there were people like me out there! Funny, innit?

Sticking to one army for a game, and sticking to one army to the point of obsession over the course of multiple releases, even choosing specific factions in high-turnover games like Blood Bowl and Necromunda, are not the same thing.

I'm pretty sure by this point there's NOBODY out there quite like you.

Now, I know you're going to try to say that we were talking about my dislike of needing more than one crew and spending money on models that will rarely, if ever, see play. My counterargument is as follows:

That situation is intrinsically tied into the imbalance between masters. Fix the balance, and the economic issue settles itself.

I'd only try to say it because that's exactly what I was talking about - which you obviously know.

And yes, if you fixed the balance, the economic issue might fix itself. If the economic issue were a problem. The actual costs to play the game, even with variety, has been covered repeatedly. Your odd obsession with idle models shouldn't really enter into the equation. I'm honestly surprised you'd play anything like goblins, because they die quickly (and in bunches) and sit idle to the side of the board for large parts of the game. What's the real difference between owning 10 models that sit out every other game, and 40 goblins that sit out 80% of every game?

A decent number of people would prefer starter sets to be more balanced, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make your strange obsession with model ownership the way to fix that, or mean that any of them agree with that obsession. Claiming otherwise is unfair to them.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Well I see that the best thing to do is just realize that there is a difference of opinions and call it good. JPROTH if there is an obvious direct imbalance that you see I would say start a new thread and address that issue as a stand alone instead of trying to attack the game mechanics as a whole because it is not coming across very well.

Other than that I would say this thread bar come to a head and will not go anywhere good and I would hate to see forum members start flaming each other.

[Uncle]

Sticking to one army for a game, and sticking to one army to the point of obsession over the course of multiple releases, even choosing specific factions in high-turnover games like Blood Bowl and Necromunda, are not the same thing.

When was the last time you played in back-to-back Necromunda campaigns, or in consequential Blood Bowl leagues? Generally speaking, we're talking about short periods of activity followed by people sitting around and saying "You know, we really should start up a Blood Bowl league again..."

I'm pretty sure by this point there's NOBODY out there quite like you.

You might want to look at the playgroups in my area, and those that existed in Lawrence, Kansas in the early 2000s (not sure what they're like now). There are a few people who went all Pokemon-style on the models, but they have always been a rare exception compared to the guys who build an army, play it until they're tired of it, and then sell it off or move on to another game.

Variation has not been the high point of any game I've seen, and "all-comers" lists have always been considered the norm.

And yes, if you fixed the balance, the economic issue might fix itself. If the economic issue were a problem. The actual costs to play the game, even with variety, has been covered repeatedly. Your odd obsession with idle models shouldn't really enter into the equation. I'm honestly surprised you'd play anything like goblins, because they die quickly (and in bunches) and sit idle to the side of the board for large parts of the game. What's the real difference between owning 10 models that sit out every other game, and 40 goblins that sit out 80% of every game?

The economic issue is not a problem to you, or to quite a few other posters on the board. Got it. Don't particularly care one way or t'other. I can run my Showgirls with any strategy, against virtually any Master, and have a fairly good chance of winning, in my mind at least.

And as far as the Goblins go, my wife like Squigs and having a Night Goblin army makes her happy, so I built her one. That's really the long and the short of it.

A decent number of people would prefer starter sets to be more balanced, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make your strange obsession with model ownership the way to fix that, or mean that any of them agree with that obsession. Claiming otherwise is unfair to them.

I at no time claimed that they agreed with me on the economic principles of gamesmanship, nor do I feel that I am "obsessed," but rather, that it keeps getting brought up as an easy target for you to snipe at. That's fine, though: the real issue is balance between masters. Acheive that, and there's really nothing more I can say.

[Poko]

For the vast majority of minis gamers, your argument IS absurd.

I for once would assume a company could manage the task of making sure masters were of comparable power though. I don't expect every possible combination and units to be equally useful in all circumstances, but a master should not be wildly different in power level to others. As it is, Marcus can look at Hoff's Moving Castle scarily and that's it. Masters with no or poor shooting options in their lists have absolutely hellish time fighting Colette, even going as far as being downright tedious. Again, most masters are somewhat balanced against each other, but there are some that are just POOR. Marcus has no excuse, he's only forte seems to be bravely running away. He got some nice options in the new book...but so did everyone else, and that made their lists even stronger, so overall lack of balance is retained in his case. This is NOT normal, nor desirable as far as I am concerned.

[Buhallin]

To be clear, since you quoted me: The idea that masters should be balanced isn't absurd. I was referring to JP's "I should be able to use every model I own every game". That's not a standard belief - many of us as long-time gamers have actually never encountered it before.

I agree with you on the master balance issues. Some are more powerful than others. Marcus is definitely on the weak side, but I think far better than most give him credit for, mostly because of his flexibility. And there are some that are notably on the upper end of the power scale, and I too find that frustrating at times. Dig back through some older posts in the Arcanists section and you'll see my own "How the heck do I deal with Perdita?" complaints.

But that's not unique - quite the opposite. There's not a single tabletop game out there that can look at all their leaders and say "These are all equally viable". In some games it's worse, as entire factions fall by the wayside. Warmachine is probably the closest game in style to Malifaux, and it suffers exactly the same problem. Amon Ad-Raza was a worse leader than Marcus has ever been, and way back in Prime Sorscha and Vlad were such powerhouses that I had to actually wrack my brain while writing this to remember who the third Khadoran warcaster was.

"Every master should be balanced" is a nice theory, but it's kinda like "Software should just work." History suggests that it's way, WAY harder than implied. If you really want to discuss that then it can certainly be a topic, but IMHO at that point you aren't really talking about Malifaux any more, you're talking about the general class of tabletop games.

[Hookers]

I for once would assume a company could manage the task of making sure masters were of comparable power though. I don't expect every possible combination and units to be equally useful in all circumstances, but a master should not be wildly different in power level to others.

the masters are of the same power level, they are just good at different things and when you put one's strength against another's weakness it shows more clearly.

just because x can beat y most of the time, doesn't mean they have different power levels because y beats z and z beats x. all equal power level. i know that is part of the issue being discussed in this thread: rock, paper, scissors. every game is like that. its a good system. malifaux deals with it the best in my opinion because they let choose what to use after you know what you are trying to do.

your mission is to cut up this stuff. crap i only own paper and rock, i haven't bought scissors yet! well rock would be terrible, i'll use paper and have a solid chance.

also marcus has an activation long obey that prevents the opponent from activating that model and can be used on masters. it has very little restrictions (controlled detonation on a spider swarm... ouch). marcus is a jack of all trades, which isn't as straight forward to use or obviously powerful. some strategies are extremely easy for him, some are harder, you know... like every other master in the game.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Hookers

[Poko]

also marcus has an activation long obey that prevents the opponent from activating that model and can be used on masters

It's also so situational it's not even funny, and takes up all of his activation. Oh, and a good deal of expensive models one would like to use it on is Immune to Influence, making it limited to scaring small crap into submission. If he happens upon Hoffman, it's also completely useless since everything there has ItI. Apart from that, he's very mediocrete combatant, his synergies with his "chosen" unit type are almost nonexistent (Woo, he can force a healing flip on a beast withing 4", truly a legendary beastmaster with Veterinarian specialization) and the only thing he truly excels at is running away. He's master of fleeing, hero of marathons, lord of evasion and paragon of cowardice in action because if he meets a halfway competent combat unit he'll be slapped silly. Too bad there are some equally fast masters who can also hit hard, like Lilith or Perdita...

[Buhallin]

On Alpha: Not all that many models have Immune to Influence. Only one master does, and a few of the big boys (Flesh Golem, Bad Juju, the various Riders, Teddy). Yes, Hoffman's crew is high on it, but they're about it. So if you're up against the Guild and expect Hoffman, maybe Ramos would be a better master choice?

Yes, it's hard to pull off, but if you do it well, it's easily a game-changer. I sent him in on a late charge against Lady J, and won initiative the next turn. Alpha, and she proceeded to carve up the Judge for me. Yes, the initiative was important, but not unreasonable to hope for.

Personally, I find that Marcus' big advantage comes in crew composition, rather than direct synergy with beasts. This is easy to underappreciate if you don't actually play him. The range of models he has available is quite wide and very adaptable - of the "take X from any faction" options, the beasts are by far the widest ranging and most effective. And yes, since everyone's concerned about it, that means his box set pretty much sucks.

Is he the strongest master in the game? Not by a long shot. But he's not the useless cripple you're painting him as. And even if the ONLY thing he's good at is running away, that's a central part of a lot of strategies. Using your master solo for objective completion while other stuff does the fighting requires a different paradigm, but it can win games.

[Tograth]

Poko, have you played with marcus, or is this all second hand?

I started with Marcus myself, and yes, he has a steep learning curve. The thing is, he can be whatever you want him to be. With his 0 activations, you cast wildheart and go bear, eagle and tiger. Suddenly, you're hitting 3 times, with + flips on your Cb 6 attacks, doing 3/4/6 damage.

another option - wildheart, bear, fox, tiger (if in range) or serpent. use your zero to do some damage, activate primal reaction. Alpha with SS pumping it up.

Nothing beats slamming into Seamus, doing some damage, and then Alpha-ing and focusing a shot into his big nasty to kill them.

Back on topic - Each master, with the current exception of Hamelin, is pretty much balanced across the whole metagame. Each master has some strategies which it excels at, and some which is falls down at. In addition, there are some crews that each master can handle, and others which it cannot.

*Every* master is equal in this respect. The only one which stands out is Hamelin against the two gremlin crews. Thats the only one which is very difficult to reconcile.

Complaining about inter master balance is absurd, when you use criteria against which the models were never and will never be designed to be balanced against - i.e. a straight up fight with no strategies / schemes. The game *is* balanced on a master level, with the specific aim that each master has a selection of strategies which they are good at, and a selection which they are sub par at. Every master is balanced in that respect.

[Poko]

Poko, have you played with marcus, or is this all second hand?

Played him (and arcanists in general) for almost a year. I managed to get..oh, I think two victories compared to a hundred losses or so. Now, it might be a case of sour grapes, if I haven't met Marcus on the other side of the table, and brutalized him every single time too. He's not good at straight up fighting, but you don't NEED him to complete objectives either, all of his minions are fast enough to do it on their own. So, WHAT is he good for then? Lilith can complete "running" objectives with ease, and still is a beatstick. Likewise Perdita. Hoff is practically untouchable when surrounded with constructs, and Colette is almost impossible to catch. McMourning can go through entire enemy list, healign every wound as he kills stuff. What exactly makes Marcus shine then? Because the Alpha usually is much harder to pull off than simply whacking something on the head, he's not impressive as a fighter, and his minions can run as fast as he does. He's simply unnecessary in his lists.

[Ironburn]

This is literally one of the stupidest threads I've ever seen (sits right next to the women in Malifaux thread).

Can someone lock this abomination so everyone can move on?

[kasin666]

why theyed just start a new one same people from said thead too

[tadaka]

Complaining about inter master balance is absurd, when you use criteria against which the models were never and will never be designed to be balanced against - i.e. a straight up fight with no strategies / schemes. The game *is* balanced on a master level, with the specific aim that each master has a selection of strategies which they are good at, and a selection which they are sub par at. Every master is balanced in that respect.

I would love to know what goals you find Perdita, Lilith, Pandora, Dreamer, Colette to be sub par at?

I think every master has missions they are good at I think a couple of masters are good at all missions and that's where the imbalance comes from.

[Uncle]

I would love to know what goals you find Perdita, Lilith, Pandora, Dreamer, Colette to be sub par at?

I think every master has missions they are good at I think a couple of masters are good at all missions and that's where the imbalance comes from.

Agreed. I'd also love to know what goals Marcus is good at, at least in comparison to the other Arcanist masters.

[Fulgrima]

Agreed. I'd also love to know what goals Marcus is good at, at least in comparison to the other Arcanist masters.

Having played Marcus as my main master now for well over a year I would say that their isn't a single strat that he has any advantage over Colette in, and to make matters worse by far the best model that he can take is a Coryphee Duet. But that doesn't hurt his beast synergy any as he really doesn't have any.

As for Alpha it is a fantastic ability but not only hard to pull off especially if it is against a master where if you both have stones its a stone off and if not its still a card off as you cant use either Howl to reduce the Wp of a target because its a (1) and alpha is a (2), and unless you managed to hit the model previous with a Raptor then Stare Down is difficult as its to use it you must use feral as your other (0) to make Alpha any better. So there are times you can pull this off but if you don't manage to and fail on the alpa stage of it you will leave yourself within 8" of a model that was worthy of using Alpha on which can be bad for Marcus as he may not have all of hist wild heart on.

[Adran]

You can use wild heart as the first zero action, getting one of the zero actions from it, as well as defense and + flips to combat, then use that 0 action to strike the person you want to alpha, using your combat triger to turn them into a beast. Then you have the two action points to alpha.

Against the Book one masters, Marcu is the only one likely to get into the opponents half of the table. Also likely to be the only one able to do anything when locked in combat.

Sure, Colette now does that as well, and shows a lot more synergy with her crew than Marcus does with his. If you picked a pure arcanist beast list and put Collette in charge she wouldn't do a worse job than marcus. What she can't do is hire Shikome, or Silurids, or a Rogue necromancy.

Phil

[Poko]

What she can't do is hire Shikome, or Silurids, or a Rogue necromancy.

She doesn't have to to be even remotely competitive. Also, I can get lilith within enemy half of the board on turn one with normal cards on hand. Perdy can do so likewise and still turn on her reactive shot to pose a threat.

[Wodschow]

She doesn't have to to be even remotely competitive. Also, I can get lilith within enemy half of the board on turn one with normal cards on hand. Perdy can do so likewise and still turn on her reactive shot to pose a threat.

I believe he was referring to the Arcanist Book1 Masters, but yeah - Marcus had alot more merit before Colette came around.

[Fulgrima]

You can use wild heart as the first zero action, getting one of the zero actions from it, as well as defense and + flips to combat, then use that 0 action to strike the person you want to alpha, using your combat triger to turn them into a beast. Then you have the two action points to alpha.

Against the Book one masters, Marcu is the only one likely to get into the opponents half of the table. Also likely to be the only one able to do anything when locked in combat.

Sure, Colette now does that as well, and shows a lot more synergy with her crew than Marcus does with his. If you picked a pure arcanist beast list and put Collette in charge she wouldn't do a worse job than marcus. What she can't do is hire Shikome, or Silurids, or a Rogue necromancy.

Phil

Yea you can use the wild heart (0) to get the extra attack (0) you can also take the charge (0) which means you can threaten it from a greater distance. However this means that you wont have stare down when you come to use Alpha which is very helpful.

[Buhallin]

It's obviously not universal, but Marcus deals with special events/terrain better than probably any master in the game.

Bog? Marcus goes heavy on fliers and Silurids, and is insanely fast. Rubble or Forested? Pretty much the same, just change up the crew. Alone in the Dark? Howl+Roar=one sick look on your opponent's face.

Plenty of other masters end up on the seriously short end of some of the specials. Dim Lighting or Forested makes Perdita cry little gunslinger tears.

I've said before, and will again, that Marcus' biggest strength isn't on the table, it's in crew selection. In an odd way, his lack of deep synergy proves to be a bonus. Lilith can't really give up nephilim, and Colette doesn't have an option to run without her girls.

I have no illusions that this will appease those who think he's useless. His practical application is a specialist, using his flexibility to avoid a massive loss of effectiveness in certain bad situations. I'm OK with that.

[Q'iq'el]

I have no illusions that this will appease those who think he's useless. His practical application is a specialist, using his flexibility to avoid a massive loss of effectiveness in certain bad situations. I'm OK with that.

This is the same type of issue as the perceived imbalance between ranged and melee crews some people claim to exist.

Malifaux is a very terrain-intensive game. Not only you should have a very richly populated table(s), but you should be able to randomize the areas and play anywhere from underground mines and indoors locations to dense forests and rocky hills. I think it would be fair to say that not only most players, but most gaming clubs and stores do not have enough terrain to support a full-fledged Malifaux game.

That in turn means that any form of advantage related directly to terrain (targeting through terrain, flight, float etc) is more or less abstract for most players. Marcus' flexibility is pretty much moot if you always play on the same table.

Even in far less terrain-intensive games slight changes in table-building culture lead to huge differences in tactics and gameplay. I think we've seen such a culture clash with US 40K team at ETC - apparently the buildings and hills used in the US are much smaller than those popular in Europe and I remember reading on some blogs that players were shocked to see their opponents hiding large parts of their army behind the buildings.

Malifaux is kind of in the same place - play on a decent table, and you'd discover some masters are far stronger and others considerably weaker than usual. But because there's no common ground when it comes to terrain, threads like this tend to pop out and, of course, we cannot agree.

[Poko]

Malifaux is a very terrain-intensive game

And yet one side can say "stop" after placing the first piece of terrain, leaving you with only one more for a grand total of two, three at best.

[Uncle]

Malifaux is a very terrain-intensive game. Not only you should have a very richly populated table(s)' date=' but you should be able to randomize the areas and play anywhere from underground mines and indoors locations to dense forests and rocky hills. I think it would be fair to say that not only most players, but most gaming clubs and stores do not have enough terrain to support a full-fledged Malifaux game.[/quote']

I agree here--my playgroup is largely stuck playing on typical "warhammer" terrain which makes the game fairly predictable (at least until I get my projects done and/or TerraClips comes out). Also, there seems to be quite a bit of a disparity between how much terrain should be on the table and how much is routinely shown in the books.

However, I don't think any of that really excuses Marcus.