Game Balance

[Koschai]

Yeah. Been there. Done that. Same goes for every poor GW newbie who's ever looked at an Eldar and gone "Wow, those guys look sweet."

If you pick your models based solely on looks, and refuse to consider the actual game you're trying to play, then yes, there are going to be problems. This exists in pretty much every game out there - I'm not sure why every insists on pretending it's somehow unique to Malifaux.

Fair enough. I think my participation in this debate is winding down as I'm agreeing with both sides lol. I'm in the same boat as JPRoth here as I love some gangs and have no interest in others so even if I play multiple gangs they will be multi faction.

That said while it would be nice if gangs were balanced (at least starter boxes) I agree that if my own choices put me in a situation where my gang is not competitive to a specific opponent well, I also play Tyranids in 40k so I'm no stranger to a challenge and there's more than one opponent.

It does seem a shame that Malifaux while pushing such "thematic cliques" then pushes you to burst the bubbles mixing them up but I maintain that outside of theory I've not seen much of this in practice and even if let's say my preferred opponent wanted to run a gang that was auto win to my my Pandora gang, the odds are I will have a 2nd gang pretty soon that I could play (just decide before the missions decided rather than after) instead.

I do have one aching question though. Why is Hamelin so overpowered? I was put off a little because I assumed he's be underpowered...

[Uncle]

And, as I mentioned before, I loved Flameguard and Protectorate 'jacks. You ever try running a Protectorate 'jack-heavy army around the time of Escalation?

Define 'Jack-heavy Protectorate. Back in Escalation, I was runnning a 3-'Jack pKreoss list that was considered up there with pSorscha in terms of power. Of course, they were two Redeemers and a Revenger, so maybe that's not the heaviest, but you know.

If you pick your models based solely on looks, and refuse to consider the actual game you're trying to play, then yes, there are going to be problems. This exists in pretty much every game out there - I'm not sure why every insists on pretending it's somehow unique to Malifaux.

The problem is exasperated by Malifaux because of the vast difference in appearance between factions. Really, only the Guild and the Resurrectionists really look particularly unified, and they both have their outliers. This is made worse by the Outcasts, who oftentimes cannot even come close to sharing models between masters.

If I were to have started Malifaux and picked a "weak" box (let's say Som'er or McMourning) and been playing against "strong" boxes, there would be little incentive for me to stick around. Telling me "oh, you pretty much wasted that forty bucks, but hey, why don't you double down and buy Seamus or the like?" really would not encourage me.

I'm not saying that bad matchups shouldn't exist. I'm saying that things like Marcus should not exist. And matchups like Ophelia vs. Hamelin, likewise, should not exist.

[Buhallin]

Define 'Jack-heavy Protectorate. Back in Escalation, I was runnning a 3-'Jack pKreoss list that was considered up there with pSorscha in terms of power. Of course, they were two Redeemers and a Revenger, so maybe that's not the heaviest, but you know.

Try throwing a Crusader and a Guardian in there, and using Severius. Drop-n-Pop was one of the more powerful combos in the game. I also thought it was pretty cheesy, so avoided it. I did so fully expecting that it would cost me, and it certainly did.

If I were to have started Malifaux and picked a "weak" box (let's say Som'er or McMourning) and been playing against "strong" boxes, there would be little incentive for me to stick around. Telling me "oh, you pretty much wasted that forty bucks, but hey, why don't you double down and buy Seamus or the like?" really would not encourage me.

Well, gee, if this is what you're telling people, it's no wonder you're having problems.

Some box sets need more help than others. That doesn't mean they're useless or that the money was wasted. Claiming so is a gross exaggeration that borders on lying. It's also, again, in no way unique to Malifaux. They may have gotten better in Mk II, but for a long time the Cygnar box set a Lancer with a $60 price tag.

I'm not saying that bad matchups shouldn't exist. I'm saying that things like Marcus should not exist. And matchups like Ophelia vs. Hamelin, likewise, should not exist.

Marcus' box set is certainly weak, but I think Marcus' general weakness is overrated, especially with the new models available to him in Rising Powers. I ate Lady J's lunch with him last week (although I will admit to good cards on my part, that didn't decide the outcome).

Hamelin is certainly an issue, and I'm honestly not sure how to address him with Gremlins. But that doesn't invalidate the "Play a faction, not a master" design of Malifaux any more than my trying to play a Crusader, Guardian, and pair of Revengers in a Protectorate list invalidated Warmachine's. If you're worried about Hamelin, take the Viks or Leveticus. Or Hamelin, which would be all kinds of funny to watch. If you won't take advantage of the options available within your faction, and insist on going into situations you know are disadvantageous because of your aesthetic preferences, that's not the game's fault, nor is it an indicator of broken balance.

[Uncle]

Some box sets need more help than others. That doesn't mean they're useless or that the money was wasted. Claiming so is a gross exaggeration that borders on lying. It's also, again, in no way unique to Malifaux. They may have gotten better in Mk II, but for a long time the Cygnar box set a Lancer with a $60 price tag.

Let's say there are two hypothetical Malifaux players who decide that they are going to get into this game. Sure, there's a fledgling group in the area, but these guys are primarily going to play against eachother.

One of them decides he's going to play Ophelia because they're like Mexican Bandito Goblins! Awesome!

The other one decides he really likes Hamelin.

What, precisely, would you tell the Ophelia player at that point?

Marcus' box set is certainly weak, but I think Marcus' general weakness is overrated, especially with the new models available to him in Rising Powers. I ate Lady J's lunch with him last week (although I will admit to good cards on my part, that didn't decide the outcome).

Marcus can win, but he typically struggles against any opponent. Sure, his weakness is probably overrated on the Internet, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't need a major boost.

Hamelin is certainly an issue, and I'm honestly not sure how to address him with Gremlins. But that doesn't invalidate the "Play a faction, not a master" design of Malifaux any more than my trying to play a Crusader, Guardian, and pair of Revengers in a Protectorate list invalidated Warmachine's. If you're worried about Hamelin, take the Viks or Leveticus. Or Hamelin, which would be all kinds of funny to watch. If you won't take advantage of the options available within your faction, and insist on going into situations you know are disadvantageous because of your aesthetic preferences, that's not the game's fault, nor is it an indicator of broken balance.

Okay, so now we're going to tell the new player who just wants to play with Som'er or Ophelia "Hey, look, spend another couple hundred dollars and you'll be fine!"

I am not willing to buy every Arcanist model when what I want to play with is Colette. Likewise, players should not be forced to buy models they don't want to be "competitive" due to play balance issues.

[Phalanx]

Every game has it's own ups and downs. If you play warmahordes and end up facing a Khador heavy jack army (or even just a good eIrusk list with a winter guard deathstar and a Devastator) using an eSkarre tier list and lose horribly then it's not the game's balance that's the problem. I've seen Hexris wipe out over half my army with his feat before; in warmahordes bad match-ups are nearly always fatal because the game doesn't want that much terrain and it's all about beating each other's heads in. In Malifaux bad match-ups don't seem that bad, at least from my very very limited view. Out of the three games I've played two of them were the Vik's box vs Rasputina's box set with me using the Viks. I got wiped out fairly badly both times, but in the first game I managed to tie despite being wiped off the board because I played the objectives. In my third game where not even a mitt full of queens and better could save me from my opponent's awesome luck I still consider it my win because my opponent forgot about my announced scheme (though truth be told if he had remembered it he could have stopped it, but I don't believe I'm required to remind him about my scheme if he doesn't ask). How many games can you get wiped off the board and still win?

Perhaps there are more devastating match ups then what I have seen, but from my extremely limited experience you can generally mitigate those buy playing for victory points and denial rather than by trying to kill off the opponent's models.

Let's say there are two hypothetical Malifaux players who decide that they are going to get into this game. Sure, there's a fledgling group in the area, but these guys are primarily going to play against eachother.

One of them decides he's going to play Ophelia because they're like Mexican Bandito Goblins! Awesome!

The other one decides he really likes Hamelin.

What, precisely, would you tell the Ophelia player at that point?

I would tell him that he was unlucky and picked the paper to his opponent's rock. It's one of the risks inherent in playing a game with models with unique rules where you can design your own force. What would you tell a guy who buys an eSkarre tier list when his standard opponent buys up a Karchev tier list? Pretty much all forces have some sort of weakness and if your opponent just so happens to have yours then it's your own bad luck.

Okay, so now we're going to tell the new player who just wants to play with Som'er or Ophelia "Hey, look, spend another couple hundred dollars and you'll be fine!"

A couple hundred is exaggerating. If he spent another couple hundred then he'd probably have every outcast model in the game and still have some change left to buy some toys for Levi.

As a wargamer he could probably figure out the more obvious weaknesses just by looking at the models (hell, I'm sure even a non-wargamer would suspect that gremlins are easy to kill and cheap). Other than that, mention that Hamlin really hoses gremlins and suggest that it might be worth it to get another Outcast master to deal with him. From what I know of the psychology of nerds most will just stick with the gremlins until they either figure out how to win against Hamlin or until they decide they need to expand their force in order to be able to deal with him.

I mean, if you played 40K tyranids and decided to go 100% close combat with a pair of tyrants and max hormagaunts when mech is the best army (and mech is pretty much a hard counter to mass swarms like that) and you refused to play anything else because you only liked hormagaunts and hive tyrants with close combat only out of all the nids then it's your own fault. It's the game's duty to give every faction the tools it needs to win against any other faction, but it's not the game's fault if the player refuses to use the tools given to them.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Phalanx

[Buhallin]

One of them decides he's going to play Ophelia because they're like Mexican Bandito Goblins! Awesome!

The other one decides he really likes Hamelin.

Assuming I have the chance to explain it to them, I'd simply say there are some very bad matchups, and this is one of them. If neither of them are the least bit interested in playing anything but those two crews... <shrug> Well, the game would have gotten old for them pretty quick anyway, just playing the same two crews against each other over and over.

Okay, so now we're going to tell the new player who just wants to play with Som'er or Ophelia "Hey, look, spend another couple hundred dollars and you'll be fine!"

I am not willing to buy every Arcanist model when what I want to play with is Colette. Likewise, players should not be forced to buy models they don't want to be "competitive" due to play balance issues.

First, no, I wouldn't tell them they need to spend a couple hundred dollars, because it's not true. I would explain that Malifaux is balanced based on factions, not specific masters, and they should look at a secondary master to deal with bad matchups. If they weren't interested in that, I'd suggest they focus on warpigs to take out Hamelin and the Ratcatchers. Either way, they'd be looking at $40-$60, not hundreds.

Your massive overstatements are getting old. You don't have to spend hundreds of dollars. You don't have to own every Arcanist model. If you're not willing to play any model in a game beyond 5-6 of them, then guess what? You're probably going to get hosed no matter what game you play.

What would you tell me if I were trying to play Warmachine with nothing but Irusk and a bunch of Marauders, because those dual power spade thingies look awesome, and who doesn't like guys in uniform? Or I really thought Darius looked awesome, and I love the idea of Stormblades, so let's cram them together. I don't want to buy any of those other warjacks - I don't like robots - but a guy in big power armor IS cool. Is it forcing me to buy models I don't want in order to be competitive with Irusk or Darius in those cases?

[Uncle]

Assuming I have the chance to explain it to them, I'd simply say there are some very bad matchups, and this is one of them. If neither of them are the least bit interested in playing anything but those two crews... <shrug> Well, the game would have gotten old for them pretty quick anyway, just playing the same two crews against each other over and over.

For what it's worth, I know quite a few people who play games like that for years. They're hardly "target customers," but they still spend the money to play in a two-player group with pretty much fixed models.

Additionally, if those two players are the first two to show interest in Malifaux in a FLGS, the game's off for a very rocky start.

First, no, I wouldn't tell them they need to spend a couple hundred dollars, because it's not true. I would explain that Malifaux is balanced based on factions, not specific masters, and they should look at a secondary master to deal with bad matchups. If they weren't interested in that, I'd suggest they focus on warpigs to take out Hamelin and the Ratcatchers. Either way, they'd be looking at $40-$60, not hundreds.

Assuming they started off with Ophelia, they couldn't take warpigs (and Hamelin rapidly makes them worthless as well). So, your Ophelia player would then need to invest in a completely different Master--we'll say Som'er, because at least he's a gremlin.

Som'er's Box: 37.00

Additonal Warpig: 15.00

Additonal Gremlins (you'll need them): 19.50

4 Mosquitos (pretty much mandatory for Som'er): 28.00

Hog Whisperer (for the pigs): 8.25

Piglets (because Som'er can make them): 7.50

So, with an investment of 115.25 retail, he too can have a second Master that gives him a snowball's chance in hell of dealing with Hamelin. Of course, the investment drops quite a bit if we're looking at the Vickies or the Freikorps.

Of course, both those Gremlin crews have nasty matchups against Wp-based crews. Hmm, time to buy a box of Freikorps?

Your massive overstatements are getting old. You don't have to spend hundreds of dollars. You don't have to own every Arcanist model. If you're not willing to play any model in a game beyond 5-6 of them, then guess what? You're probably going to get hosed no matter what game you play.

If I want to be as competitive as possible, I need to own at least one of each Arcanist model (multiples, in most cases), plus the Mercenaries, all of the Beasts, and the Constructs that Ramos can take. That's starting to look less like a "character-driven skirmish game" and more like "40k, but with only a handful of models on the table at a given game."

What would you tell me if I were trying to play Warmachine with nothing but Irusk and a bunch of Marauders, because those dual power spade thingies look awesome, and who doesn't like guys in uniform? Or I really thought Darius looked awesome, and I love the idea of Stormblades, so let's cram them together. I don't want to buy any of those other warjacks - I don't like robots - but a guy in big power armor IS cool. Is it forcing me to buy models I don't want in order to be competitive with Irusk or Darius in those cases?

I would tell you that Warmachine is a game that seems to be played almost entirely by cutthroat gamers, and that it's far more CCG in feel than wargame. Hopefully that would drive the point across.

[Buhallin]

Assuming they started off with Ophelia, they couldn't take warpigs (and Hamelin rapidly makes them worthless as well).

Whoops, hadn't realized that one. My bad on that.

Som'er's Box: 37.00 ...

So, you've now proven that picking the closest thing Malifaux has to a swarm army can be expensive. Congratulations! I guess. In other breaking news, playing a Goblin army in WHFB requires lots of models, and that costs more!

If I want to be as competitive as possible, I need to own at least one of each Arcanist model (multiples, in most cases), plus the Mercenaries, all of the Beasts, and the Constructs that Ramos can take. That's starting to look less like a "character-driven skirmish game" and more like "40k, but with only a handful of models on the table at a given game."

This is simply not true. If you want to be as competitive as possible, you need to have at least THREE of each Arcanist model (excepting Rare limitations, of course), beasts, mercs, and probably about 30 Steampunk Arachnids (and 10 Swarms), because you never know just how often you'll be summoning a new one. Of course, someone could suggest a Brawl, so you'd probably need to expand to equal numbers for the entire Guild too, since Hoffman and Ramos can work together...

If that's where you want to you, you're exactly right. And if you want to be as competitive as possible at Warmachine, you'd have to own an entire faction plus all the mercenaries and all the crossover minions. And if you want to be as competitive as possible in 40K, you'd have to own all the possible combinations for your army of choice, with multiple copies of the same model showing the proper weapon options.

You're so deep into straw man territory at this point that even the Scarecrow would feel a little out of place. I think we'll just let this one go now.

[Uncle]

Whoops, hadn't realized that one. My bad on that.

The real question there is whether or not Hamelin can be targeted by Pere Ravage or Y'all Watch This. If that's the case, there's a small chance of Ophelia being able to work in, say, an Assassination game, but it's small.

So, you've now proven that picking the closest thing Malifaux has to a swarm army can be expensive. Congratulations! I guess. In other breaking news, playing a Goblin army in WHFB requires lots of models, and that costs more!

For what it's worth, my Night Goblin army was actually fairly inexpensive to put together, considering--I believe I've spent close to 200 dollars on it. Admittedly, BfSP helped out a lot there--much of my purchases consisted of split boxes with a local Dwarf player--but it's still not that bad. Furthermore, one would expect to spend more on a larger-scale wargame as opposed to a "character-driven skirmish game."

This is simply not true. If you want to be as competitive as possible, you need to have at least THREE of each Arcanist model (excepting Rare limitations, of course), beasts, mercs, and probably about 30 Steampunk Arachnids (and 10 Swarms), because you never know just how often you'll be summoning a new one. Of course, someone could suggest a Brawl, so you'd probably need to expand to equal numbers for the entire Guild too, since Hoffman and Ramos can work together...

Exactly. And that's more than a little silly, in several ways. Firstly, I doubt anyone would ever be that committed--and if so, more power to them--but also, we're talking about a skirmish game here. Buy-in should never be comparable to a large-scale war game.

If that's where you want to you, you're exactly right. And if you want to be as competitive as possible at Warmachine, you'd have to own an entire faction plus all the mercenaries and all the crossover minions. And if you want to be as competitive as possible in 40K, you'd have to own all the possible combinations for your army of choice, with multiple copies of the same model showing the proper weapon options.

In both these cases you are incorrect. In a tournament setting for Warhammer/40k, I am limited to one set list for the entire event, therefore, to be as competitive as possible, I need only to build a single hard-as-nails list. I need no variation (although the changing metagame means I might swap things around in between events) whatsoever.

In Warmahordes, I need two hard-as-nails lists with, again, no extra models lying around "just in case." I do not need to think "Hmm, my opponent is playing Guild, which means they're probably running Sonnia, so it'd be a good idea to run Ramos, but we're playing Shared A Line in the Sand, so I need some fast models that are survivable--maybe I should take Snow Storm?" etc. Instead, I have to think "Hmm, do I run my Karchev 'Jack-heavy list or my Irusk Infantry list?"

You're so deep into straw man territory at this point that even the Scarecrow would feel a little out of place. I think we'll just let this one go now.

Calling out strawman is a good way to make someone give up, but unfortunately you're incorrect here.

[ThePandaDirector]

A quick read through of this thread is quite scary.

I can see the two major points being made (or at least the loudest ones)

There are those who play the game for masters and those who play for factions, with many owning masters from several factions. With a game designed to balance factions those who play for a specific master feel the game is inbalanced due to master-master match-ups being somewhat skewed. This is understandable, back in 40K and fantasy I always played highly themed armies, and thoroughly enjoyed the one game I won in every ten I played, and when I turned to Warmachine I aspired to do the same but realised that it was a much more tactical and synergised game, but nevertheless I aimed to pick a warcaster whose themed force was as close to my own personal preference and make a balanced force out of what I liked most (swapping the best units for the next best thing etc).

Now with Malifaux it's different, Factions act as a whole with most masters having at least some synergy with most of the models belonging to that faction. Now I don't have personal experience with most of the more challanging masters, but it seems to me that if you aim to use the same crew for every scrap or brawl then you're gonna have to accept you'll lose often. There are ways to get around this, getting the right strategy and scheme and focussing on completing them. If you're having trouble fighting a friend you can always add extra narrative to a game and make custom strategies and even crew selections. However, in tournaments and competitive games you will just not have a 50-50 chance of winning unless you are skilled enough and you get good cards (and your opponent doesn't), but that's what happens.

In warhammer if I have a chaos army versus a cannon, guns and magic heavy empire army - which I fought a number of times - the end result is generally the same. The same with Warmachine and other games, there are always bad matches where the only way of winning is a combination of skill and bloody good luck. It's what makes the games more challanging, with an easy game ending in disastor and a lost cause ending in heroic victory. And this is why Maliaux is the most balanced, because you have a large hand in your own luck, able cheat fate and tailor your crew to complete your objective even if it means playing in manner which doesn't suit you. One crew can't play one way against all, that's chess or the like, but with time, skill and luck, plus a little bit of cheating (not that kind!) one crew can play in many ways against all, just not as well as a faction-faction match up.

God that was long and probably doesn't contain a single piece of useful information.. oh well

[Uncle]

In warhammer if I have a chaos army versus a cannon, guns and magic heavy empire army - which I fought a number of times - the end result is generally the same.

You win by massacre because your 40-man hordes of Marauders and 30-40-man Tzeentch Chosen horde can't possibly take enough damage to matter before you hit the enemy?

Sorry, had to.

[ThePandaDirector]

You win by massacre because your 40-man hordes of Marauders and 30-40-man Tzeentch Chosen horde can't possibly take enough damage to matter before you hit the enemy?

Sorry, had to.

I guess that translates as having 4-man hordes of Gremlins and 3-4 warpigs. Could work?

[Hookers]

Let's say there are two hypothetical Malifaux players who decide that they are going to get into this game. Sure, there's a fledgling group in the area, but these guys are primarily going to play against eachother.

One of them decides he's going to play Ophelia because they're like Mexican Bandito Goblins! Awesome!

The other one decides he really likes Hamelin.

What, precisely, would you tell the Ophelia player at that point?

this is a good example in that it represents the worst case scenario possible

honestly in this situation i would just tell them to ignore the targeting restrictions. that would probably give ophelia a slight upper hand, but hamelin could have enough fun with their low Wp that it would probably even out.

per the talk about actual dollars, malifaux is a good bit cheaper than a majority of the other games out there. the actual dollar amount you spend is not the problem it is the perceived effect of $ = power. there is mr. suitcase in every game. i won whfb tournaments owning the bare minimum number of models needed to even field 2250 pts. however i was very specific in the models that i bought. i bought the good ones and didn't buy the bad ones. i still chose my army based on fluff and feel and personal appeal though. but given my army choice, there are simply models that are not worth owning for every army in warhammer (they just switch up which models those are each new edition and armybook release).

the appeal of getting new players into the game is that with 30-40 bucks you have a crew and can play. the problem with that is the starter boxes are not balanced, so when a bunch of new players start play some feel left out because when they are all equal and no one knows what they are doing they simply don't have the same tools. the starter boxes are not balanced because a) i don't think they ever tried to, and the models needed to balance some of them did not exist at the time.

as other people have pointed out, another problem with the practical application of balance is that players generally tend to feel attached to a certain master, and not a certain faction. but the game is balanced around the factions being equal. ressurectionists and the guild are very easy to move models around from master to master and have pretty similar feel to each of them where if you like one you will probably like at least another one. arcanists and neverborn can fairly easily as well but to a lesser extent, and outcasts of course have almost no synergy with each other.

for casual play, as it was said earlier, all it really comes down to is not being a jerk. new players will really need some guidance if they are only playing starter box size games. even in groups that start off "in a vaccuum" the early adopters will enjoy the game regardless most likely, become good enough to win even the slightly unfavorable match ups, and then recognize those match ups and help the new players that they bring in.

for competitive play, all you really need is 2 masters and a handful of models. that's it.

tl;dr

the truth is the game is really balanced very well, and at worst balanced better than every other miniature game that i know about.

*side note about the worst match up in the game currently hamelin v. gremlins: none of the book 1 match ups even come close to this one (even just starter boxes). i finally got to try it out and it is indeed very difficult (even flipped contain power and didn't reflip just to see how bad it could be). warpigs alone simply are not the answer. the pigapault is the way to go for sure, although it is extremely unfortunate that it is insignificant as well. however with Wp 10 you can shoot down the rat catchers with relative ease (and then using blasts hopefully to exterminate some rats). once they are down a warpig and somer will have a fighting chance against hamelin himself, but don't forget to use all the pulse and blast damage you can first to whittle him down.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Hookers

[Buhallin]

Exactly. And that's more than a little silly, in several ways. Firstly, I doubt anyone would ever be that committed--and if so, more power to them--but also, we're talking about a skirmish game here. Buy-in should never be comparable to a large-scale war game.

Sarcasm detector broken?

In both these cases you are incorrect. In a tournament setting for Warhammer/40k, I am limited to one set list for the entire event, therefore, to be as competitive as possible, I need only to build a single hard-as-nails list. I need no variation (although the changing metagame means I might swap things around in between events) whatsoever.

In Warmahordes, I need two hard-as-nails lists with, again, no extra models lying around "just in case." I do not need to think "Hmm, my opponent is playing Guild, which means they're probably running Sonnia, so it'd be a good idea to run Ramos, but we're playing Shared A Line in the Sand, so I need some fast models that are survivable--maybe I should take Snow Storm?" etc. Instead, I have to think "Hmm, do I run my Karchev 'Jack-heavy list or my Irusk Infantry list?"

Really? You never consider what your opponent might bring when you put your list together?

That makes the situation no different if you want to be, as you said, AS COMPETITIVE AS POSSIBLE. Dealing with who and what you might face is part of making any list for any tournament. The only difference is that the metagame in Malifaux essentially moves much much faster - per game instead of per tournament. In the grand scheme of what you need to own, it's really no different.

Calling out strawman is a good way to make someone give up, but unfortunately you're incorrect here.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption - that in order to be as competitive as possible, you must own every model. That's ludicrous, and you've completely failed to support it, yet your entire argument is based on it. A player needs to be able to handle scenarios and situations, and there are multiple ways to accomplish that. You show enough background with wargames that I expect you know it.

Besides, I know enough by now to know better than to expect you to give up. If it helps, though, I'll grant at least one of your points: If you have two people who will only ever play against each other, are only willing to buy one box set each, and refuse to buy anything but Ophelia and Hamelin, then yeah - Malifaux sucks for them. Congrats, you win.

I'm done with this excuse of a debate.

[Uncle]

Sarcasm detector broken?

Really? You never consider what your opponent might bring when you put your list together?

I figured that out when I built my first tournament list, and as I continued to compete, that might involve an occasional purchase. That's far from saying that I need to buy a small army of models to play somewhere between 6 and 16 in a single game. I'm not sure why you think there's a similarity here.

That makes the situation no different if you want to be, as you said, AS COMPETITIVE AS POSSIBLE. Dealing with who and what you might face is part of making any list for any tournament. The only difference is that the metagame in Malifaux essentially moves much much faster - per game instead of per tournament. In the grand scheme of what you need to own, it's really no different.

It's actually quite different. In Warmahordes, I need at most two Masters and the 'Jacks and units to support them. If I am careful in in how I build my lists, some of those units can overlap easily: Iron Fangs are typically always good, as is the Khadoran Winterguard Horde. On a completely other tangent, if I wanted to play, say, Outcasts in a Malifaux tournament, I would need a huge amount of models to be "competitive." I find that to be a major game balance issue. Go figure.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption - that in order to be as competitive as possible, you must own every model. That's ludicrous, and you've completely failed to support it, yet your entire argument is based on it. A player needs to be able to handle scenarios and situations, and there are multiple ways to accomplish that. You show enough background with wargames that I expect you know it.

No, my assumption is that Mr. Suitcase has an advantage coming into a game over the guy who has a box set and the models to support it. And that is a poverty of game design.

Besides, I know enough by now to know better than to expect you to give up. If it helps, though, I'll grant at least one of your points: If you have two people who will only ever play against each other, are only willing to buy one box set each, and refuse to buy anything but Ophelia and Hamelin, then yeah - Malifaux sucks for them. Congrats, you win.

I'm done with this excuse of a debate.

For real this time, as opposed to the other times you bowed out?

[WUWU]

It's actually quite different. In Warmahordes, I need at most two Masters and the 'Jacks and units to support them. If I am careful in in how I build my lists, some of those units can overlap easily: Iron Fangs are typically always good, as is the Khadoran Winterguard Horde. On a completely other tangent, if I wanted to play, say, Outcasts in a Malifaux tournament, I would need a huge amount of models to be "competitive." I find that to be a major game balance issue. Go figure.

Or you could also be careful in how you build your lists in Malifaux as well. You aren't being fair or entirely accurate in your examples.

A better comparison to the Outcast Malifaux faction would be.... oh I don't know, the Mercenaries, where you have very little model overlap between the Warcasters. Last time I checked you couldn't use any Talion Charter Jacks with Gorten.

Warmahordes is one of the last games I would bring up in a discussion on game balance.

[Phalanx]

I think we can determine that JPRoth1980 will refuse to change his opinion no matter what anyone says so people should stop feeding the troll and just agree to disagree. He believes he's correct and I doubt anyone less than God could convince him otherwise.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Phalanx

[Talos]

No, my assumption is that Mr. Suitcase has an advantage coming into a game over the guy who has a box set and the models to support it. And that is a poverty of game design.

For me that assumption is wrong. We had a tourny last year and the people that came 1st,2nd and 3rd all only owned one crew. You can easily make all comers lists if you like and just use them, but it does go against the game's theme. The game tells you to pick factions and then pick the master. This is the way the game is meant to be played you cant just ignore parts of the rule book and then whine it does not work.

Money will always be a part of wargames . If I want to be proper competitive with say Blood Angels I need 2-3 stormravens which would cost me £120. More than the amount it cost me to get all the guild models. I looked at starting a blood angels army and it was going to cost me around £300. I could easily buy a whole faction in malifaux for that.

To make my ork army competitive I need to buy trukks for all my boys which is going to cost me around £100. I cant afford that so I am stuck footslogging, my local meta game has a number of salamander armies so I lose most games. To become competitive I need to buy most of the ork models in the dex.

In Warmachine I play Cryx and my three casters are pGaspy, Terminus and Morty. These three casters play very differently and many of my models dont run well with all the casters.

So to make all three casters work I really have to buy three armies one for each of them.

Most people who play warmachine at my club own every model for there faction and most of the mercs that work for there faction. They say you cant be competive just owning one list. There are bad matches in warmachine, if terminus is against a soulless army or another cryx army with alot of undead, he will lose most of this power.

Yes in any game you can just own one list and play that for every but you will be at a disadvantage do to lack of choice.

This is not just in Malifaux but in every wargame. So it most be as you put a poverty of all game design's

Edited March 9, 2011 by Talos

[striker8]

I was in this situation with war machine way back when it first came out and to this day I do not play it.

Point made, though.

I get your point, but there are definitely...definitely some bad games out there.

I'll argue that there are actually no bad games.

You may say some are poorly written, or think there's an imbalance, that doesn;t make it a bad game since even with those nagatives if you and an opponent can play it as intended( I mean as a game and diversion that is enjoyable at all) then it is a good game. I have rule sets that date back to the late 70's that you'd probably pop a blood vessel over but we enjoyed them as long as as a group we didn;t take winning army builds to be the be all and end all.

Who are you so wise in the way of science?

This quote is the end of my part in the discussion and sums up perfectly how I feel. I've had around the same ammount of time in wargaming as yourself, and have noticed the same thing. The part of your post that I've quoted sums it up perfectly

James.

Thank you for your support. I was beginning to think only myslef and a few friends still gamed for the spectacle and enjoymet our battles produced.

[Uncle]

Warmahordes is one of the last games I would bring up in a discussion on game balance.

I actually agree with you there. It's not a particularly balanced game and was brought up because someone pointed out that you needed (gasp!) two lists for a standard tournament.

I think we can determine that JPRoth1980 will refuse to change his opinion no matter what anyone says so people should stop feeding the troll and just agree to disagree. He believes he's correct and I doubt anyone less than God could convince him otherwise

I love how the term "troll" get thrown around so much on the internet. I assure you, the fact that I disagree with you does not make me a troll. However, you are correct in one sense--I believe I am correct and it would take quite a bit of effort to convince me otherwise. Kind of like you, huh?

For me that assumption is wrong. We had a tourny last year and the people that came 1st,2nd and 3rd all only owned one crew. You can easily make all comers lists if you like and just use them, but it does go against the game's theme. The game tells you to pick factions and then pick the master. This is the way the game is meant to be played you cant just ignore parts of the rule book and then whine it does not work.

Was there someone who owned 3 of every model for his faction at the tournament or were most of the other players similarly limited?

Furthermore, I fully agree that you can't ignore the "gotta buy 'em all!" aspect written into the rules. I just do not believe that it excuses bad balance decisions, specifically Marcus vs. Everyone and Ophelia/Som'er vs. Hamelin. To be honest, outside of those matchups, I think everything is fairly well balanced--there are bad matchups, but they're winnable.

[gru6y]

JPRoth1980, why won't you let go and accept that the game is balanced around factions (as stated before).

If someone intends to play the game against how it is intended to be played, they should not be surprised/annoyed they're not receiving the full experience.

[Sandwich]

For one,

This game is not balanced around "Factions."

Regardless of what you are told.

A Faction in this game represents an idea that all models within that particular faction bear semblance to.

Guild? Police.

Ressurectionists? Zombies.

Arcanists? Mages.

Neverborn? Monsters.

The Outcast faction exists because the models present within its ranks cannot fit into the other factions storywise.

Is Som'er a Guild Officer? No.

Is he a Zombie flinging maniac? Partially no.

Is he a mage? No.

Then is he a demon? No.

(Though he technically is a Neverborn. He was born in Malifaux.)

So this whole "Based on Faction" mumbo jumbo needs to stop, please.

Especially since we're throwing around the "Strawman Argument" phrase and then bringing this "Faction Balance" garbage to the table.

---

Let me continue with the Balance statement.

In a game of Malifaux, 2+ players compete on a game field of simulated terrain with small models that are then used as an extension of one's will to perform specific tasks alloted by random chance and also player choice (See Strategies and Schemes) in order to acheive victory.

Is this correct so far?

Continuing on,

To acheive Victory, one must earn MORE Victory Points(VP) Than those that are competing against you.

Still on track?

Now, with the facts above still in mind,

Wobble this little gem about in your tickers, please.

The models of Malifaux are NOT balanced against one another, but they are instead balanced against Strategies and Schemes.

This would explain why certain masters have a horrible time completing things, whilst being amazing at others (Lucius + Deliver a Message comes to mind.)

This game is not made strictly for combat.

Ophelia's entire crew can't target Hamelin?

Guess what! Don't take assassinate!

Problem solved.

(Not to say that Hammy isn't OP anyway, though;])

Edited March 9, 2011 by Sandwich

[Buhallin]

For one,

This game is not balanced around "Factions."

Regardless of what you are told.

A Faction in this game represents an idea that all models within that particular faction bear semblance to.

Guild? Police.

Ressurectionists? Zombies.

Arcanists? Mages.

Neverborn? Monsters.

The Outcast faction exists because the models present within its ranks cannot fit into the other factions storywise.

Is Som'er a Guild Officer? No.

Is he a Zombie flinging maniac? Partially no.

Is he a mage? No.

Then is he a demon? No.

(Though he technically is a Neverborn. He was born in Malifaux.)

So this whole "Based on Faction" mumbo jumbo needs to stop, please.

I'm not sure how any of this actually relates to whether or not the game is balanced based on the concept of faction availability, rather than master/model availability? Certainly it explains why Som'er is in the Outcast faction, but what does that have to do with how well Som'er balances against Sonnia vs. how well Outcasts balance against the Guild? If Som'er were a gremlin who had been recruited by the Guild in his backstory, and brought along a bunch of his buddies, would that change the game balance?

[Adran]

Lets look at a worse case.

You are playing faction A.

How many lists are you going to actually want to be able to field?

Well there are 13 stratergies you could have and 5 factions you could be facing.

Which is the information that game says you can know before you pick your list.

But even then you are probably looking at no more than 3 different set up for stratergy (killing, speed/interactions, Survival) with maybe a few changes for the faction you face.

You probably would have 5-6 lists. And several of the models would probably be in multiple lists.

Playing in scraps of up to 40 points you could probably play with no restriction and only own about 20-30 models ( And the upper end is more for if you are playing Gremlin or summoners).

I think you would struggle to be spending more than $200 on that. You probably won't have a whole faction, but you may have some duplication.

And that is what you would need for any pick up game.

If you know what your opponent is going to be playing you might increase this because you've increased your pre-game knowledge.

(For example, knowing you'll be facing Kiari might lead to more magical attacks than you would put in your list for facing the other resseurectionists), btu you still are unlikely tol use all possible models.

[Ciaran]

One of them decides he's going to play Ophelia because they're like Mexican Bandito Goblins! Awesome!

The other one decides he really likes Hamelin.

What, precisely, would you tell the Ophelia player at that point?

I'd say that he really needs to be careful picking schemes, to play for victory points, not to kill his opponent, and that he'll have to get really good at the resource management aspect of the game. I'd also let him know that he's going to get swarmed hardcore, and to use terrain really wisely.

I'd then suggest they expand their gaming circle for Malifaux so neither of them gets too frustrated.

It seems like you're just angry, and really don't enjoy your experiences with this game. I really hope you're able to find a way to share the joy that so many others have found in something as innocuous as a game that uses little pewter people. If not, I might start questioning why you keep proverbially running your head into the wall.