Game Balance

[Koschai]

I was stepping out and am not realy getting back into this as I'm still new and still agreeing with bost sides but just on the topic of balance in other games...

I would note that Warhammer 40k is not balanced, the rules and codexes too easily broken by loopholes and exploits allowing "killer" builds. If you try and play an army based on fluff or a theme, unless you are playing a friend or a some kind of non competitive build, you are screwed. Added to codex creep and GW's specialty of cycling models through vital to useless with each codex update to keep you spending, imbalance is simply accepted as a fact of life.

Prior to the most recent rules edition Warhammer Fantasy was so broken that if one of two armies were played the conclusion was pre determined. So much so that if you played that army the only game you could get would be at a tournament where they force people to play you!

Warmachine meanwhile takes an extreme perspective on rock paper scissors. I don't play Warmachine so wont go into detail here lest I get pulled up on it, however while each faction has the capability to build a killer list (there are no dud factions), the list as much as the player will determine outcome.

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.

Before I get jumped on though yes, you can argue that a gang is not an army, its a part of an army (the faction being the army) so playing a gang is like playing a certain unit. It was never designed to stand alone. I dont like this argument though as each gang is so different and thematically self contained it almost feels like a betrayal to then tell someone that they were never expected to play it stand alone.

It seems to me that none of these are all that different. Imbalance is the price we pay for having multiple different armies facing off against each other. Each game tries to deal with this in different ways. GW embraces the imbalance switching things round periodically so todays broken is tomorrow cuddled forcing you to keep up with the curve (and keep spending) or wait for your day in the sun.

Warmachine gives you the option to build two lists that cover your different angles and pick one when you know who you'll be facing (to avoid the worst mismatches) and Malifaux allows you to build your list at the table knowing in advance what the mission and some idea of what the opponent is going to be.

In GW's case you have to keep buying models so you can keep up with codex changes (and a lot of stuff spends years on shelves). Warmachine forces you to buy alternative casters and the models required to make them efficient. Malifaux forces you to buy a couple of different gangs (and encourages them to be from the same faction) and a small variety of support pieces.

Welcome to miniature gaming where balance has never been real option. The only significant different seems to be that the "extra" you need to buy if you want to play on a competitive scene is a hell of a lot cheaper here.

In the midst of all this you have two choices. Play a theme and understand that power builds will take you down but you have your theme and should be playing with friends. Or you can play a power build but understand that wargaming costs... Still in my case I want to play Pandora but dont have any interest in Lillith or the old woman. This means I'm stuck playing theme and hoping I dont get a bad matchup. That saddens me.

I do still think that balance should be aspired for but sooner or later I guess realism sets in. Imbalance meanwhile hurts newbies in all systems. The gremlin player got boned apparently, sure but then so did the tyranid player and the guy who just bought Aquans for Firestorm Armada. Hopefully his buddies will give him a break, or maybe he'll suppliment his list with some extra models and play the mission.

Maybe he'll just quit. But for every player who quits there are 10 that just buy more models. Its a business model that is proven.

Anyway sorry for rambling. Hope this had some redeeming quality and added to the debate. Still wanting to know why Hamelin is so overpowered btw...

[elril]

My 0.02$ on this debate. This has degenerated down to JPRoth vs. the world. While I agree some of his arguments are founded on exaggeration, he is making some points. People need to not take these discussions so personally and stop name calling. There is a difference between a troll and someone who is arguing to keep a discussion going. Obviously he enjoys/plays the game because he is on this forum and plays. Even if he didn't the fact he disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to attack him or he is an idiot. Reminds me of the time I said "that is why I don't like this game" (warmahordes) at the local store and was denigrated for a week, because I shouldn't be at the store then. People take their games personally and everyone should just take a step back. It is a game and a hobby, not a statement of your personality. <once again puts soap box away>

[Buhallin]

Not rambling, Koschai. You hit the nail on the head very well, on all points.

I don't think anybody's really disagreeing that Malifaux has its drawbacks, most especially for someone who thematically finds only a piece of a faction interesting. I don't agree that breaking the sub-factions is somehow a betrayal - I like the mental story you can build up with Rasputina loaning a few Ice Gamin to Ramos (so they can spy on him in the process), or the deal that led to Marcus helping Raspy bond and train the Cerberus that I always run her with.

The key point a lot of us were trying to get across is just that that's not unusual in wargames. In my brief FoW dalliance I play an artillery heavy midwar British rifle company. Not exactly a power list, but the African theater is fascinating to me.

Whether it's trying to stay historically accurate in FoW, run a fluffy list in Warhammer, or stick to a single master because you don't like the rest of a faction, any game will present options for list composition that will put you at a disadvantage. I don't play Warhammer much, primarily for that reason - I like fluffy lists, and spending $500 on a list that'll get demolished in less time than it takes me to unpack and repack the models doesn't sound like a good use of my money or time.

So, in my own rambling way, I'm agreeing with exactly everything you said, and you said it better than most of us in here (especially those of us with -3 Wp to resist bait posts). No apologies necessary.

[Ciaran]

I'll add my support to what you've said Koschai. You brought up some good points.

What I like so much about Malifaux is I've found that you can make "fluffy" lists for any faction and still be competitive with a minimum amount of models, even compared to other skirmish level games.

Elril, I have those kinds of conversations a lot (this is why I don't like this game, this company etc...). I see where you're going with this, I agree with your message, while reserving the right to express my concern. I certainly wouldn't want another great thread to degrade to the point of being locked for the same reasons as before...

[redphantasm]

Some masters and their crews are not suited to competativly playing specific scenarios. The same can be said of other games though. I'm not aware of any game that either rewards you or changes the rules of the scenario because you brought the wrong tool for the task.

[Ciaran]

Some masters and their crews are not suited to competativly playing specific scenarios. The same can be said of other games though. I'm not aware of any game that either rewards you or changes the rules of the scenario because you brought the wrong tool for the task.

When it comes to the pieces involved: Chess, Go!, Pente, Othello, things like that....

That's a solid point to make too. If you want something completely "fair" and balanced wargaming isn't really your hobby.

[JayBarlekamp]

Some masters and their crews are not suited to competativly playing specific scenarios. The same can be said of other games though. I'm not aware of any game that either rewards you or changes the rules of the scenario because you brought the wrong tool for the task.

No offense but there isn't a single person in this thread who has said anything contrary to this. the argument is boiling down to 2 sides:those who play a faction and those who play masters.

I fall into the later category. I had thought of sticking with all outcast masters, however there are like 4 or 5 other people already playing Levi and Viks in my area. I chose Gremlins because they were different and not many others played them. I chose Lucius because I love his story and the "evil" side of the guild. I have no intention of explanding into the guild until the Governor himself shows up as a master, mainly because none of the other guild masters "call" to me.

While we can all agree that the game was balanced by faction, not everyone plays the game that way. In fact, most of the players at my LGS have single masters spread over different factions. This works very well for us because we all play what we like. Hell, we know exactly what master we are playing against before we even start.

Wyrd has to pick a spot to Balance the game, they chose at the faction level. Many people feel they should have balanced it at the Master level. I wish it was at the master level, but it definetely won't ruin my enjoyment of the game.

Just the same, I can understand the side that play by faction, I just never found a faction that I wanted to spend my money on, only masters.

[Poko]

Many people feel they should have balanced it at the Master level.

Or at least made it clearer to newcomers that it's FACTION-driven rather than Character-driven game.

[Ciaran]

Or at least made it clearer to newcomers that it's FACTION-driven rather than Character-driven game.

It IS a character driven game in that you don't build units, you use characters. If we went with it's a Faction-Oriented game, not a Master-Oriented one I'd back you up there.

I think so much of this depends on how you get into this game. We explain that to all of our new players, and I really hope we do a good enough of a job expressing it that these things aren't a shock.

[Buhallin]

If you prefer a master-centric approach, there are other options.

Kirai, Hoffman, Marcus, Leveticus... A number of masters are far more "theme" master than faction-locked, with model availability that crosses faction boundaries.

If the problem really is "I only like these 5 models, and think they should be competitive all by themselves" then I honestly, truly don't know what to tell you. At the very least, this still isn't unique to Malifaux - if the only thing I happen to like in Warmachine is stuff that spews flame, my options are going to be severely limited, and I'm not going to do very well. I only liked one warcaster, and that warcaster happened to be underpowered, then I'd be just as hosed as if I were a pure Ophelia player.

What you're asking for doesn't exist in any other game, as far as I know. Warcasters in WM are certainly tiered to capability, and if you refused to play 90% of a faction's models, you'd be in trouble there too. Same for Warhammer. Maybe there's something out there that avoids this landmine, but I've never come across it.

While I can understand disappointment that the game isn't exactly how you want it, realism needs to enter into the picture somewhere.

[Uncle]

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.

You'd be rather wrong there--I enjoy Malifaux quite a bit (it is currently my favorite wargame by a rather wide margin). However, enjoying a game does not mean that I think it is perfect.

There is one crew that I play, and frankly I've yet to be in a situation where I felt like I was being hosed with my choice, especially once I figured out a few rules intricacies regarding the Dreamer and Companion.

I don't think anybody's really disagreeing that Malifaux has its drawbacks, most especially for someone who thematically finds only a piece of a faction interesting. I don't agree that breaking the sub-factions is somehow a betrayal - I like the mental story you can build up with Rasputina loaning a few Ice Gamin to Ramos (so they can spy on him in the process), or the deal that led to Marcus helping Raspy bond and train the Cerberus that I always run her with.

Oh, it's not a betrayal at all, especially since you are allowed to mix and match to your heart's content, within the limitations of the game. However, from a thematic standpoint, the Showgirls are very visually distinct from Rasputina's snowmen and cannibals. It is easy to see how someone would like one of those two and not the other.

Ultimately, I guess what I am saying is that it would be far better to allow each Master a fighting chance against the others. We all know that the game is balanced around Factions, but it would be nice to have balanced Masters as well.

[elril]

If the argument is "it is a great game, but it could be better", um, how do you argue against a truism?

[IronChief]

I have three balance concerns:

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.

I believe Wyrd has work to do on these points. While none of this is game breaking, it does prevent it from being my favorite game.

[Vondur]

I have three balance concerns:

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.

I believe Wyrd has work to do on these points. While none of this is game breaking, it does prevent it from being my favorite game.

This seems to be what I'm hearing from some of the people I play with. I have typically played McMourning, one guy only uses Nicodem's box, and another uses Ortegas.

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.

[Buhallin]

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

At the risk of dragging it back to the original topic, is this actually the case with any matchup in the game right now?

I've been looking at everyone's favorite "We're Doomed" scenario these days, which seems to be gremlins vs. Hamelin. It's certainly an unkind matchup for the little green guys, but is it really so predetermined?

The only direct, distinct advantage I see Hamelin having is the difficulty in targeting him or the Ratcatchers. But there doesn't seem to be any shortage of indirect damage on the part of the Gremlins. They also seem to have a solid numbers advantage for the purposes of board control - Hamelin's stuff is cheap, but really has to stay together. Assuming a decent strategy that takes advantage of that (and remember that you can reflip) it seems like far from a foregone conclusion. Ophelia is definitely a better choice for this, since she has a HUGE soulstone advantage.

For those who have actually played this, how did it really go? And assuming it went badly, how much of it was just Hamelin's general power level (which is generally accepted to be high) vs. some massive inability for the gremlins to have a chance at winning?

[ThePandaDirector]

I think in time, each master themed crew will build to have more options and versatility, with new masters ironically bringing discussians such as these back again and again. Until then I play my favourite masters - so far Perdita and Seamus and later on Lucius, Hoffman, Collodi, Levi, Hamelin, Colette, Dreamer and Gremlins. I love playing in character and getting my ass handed to be is, in a strange way, but of the joy I get from sticking by my favourite crew. I build my, crew as I imagine they would, trying to be balanced and smart when it comes to strategy and schemes, but ultimately I limit myself for the challange and the greater sense of achievment I get when I outsmart (with the help of Lady Luck) someone who has a superior build.

The issue is probably not with the rules, beyond the inescapable nuances, but with player attitude. The beginning of the Warmachine rulebook states that players should aim to win with brutal intent, so how can you complain when they do so. Warhammer really should start with an advertisment, but I still buy it. Malifaux teaches us (in the good book ) to respect our opponent/s and play in good humour. Now, the whole balance thing comes down to skill and luck - you win some you lose some - but for me what makes life hard for someone as fluffy as I is when players don't show modesty or any interest other than to feel good about themselves by beating people at a miniature game (same with every game out there). You can't complain when someone builds a crew that is effective against your master because they built there's to defeat you and you didn't. When I come up against my worst nightmare - match-up wise - despite having the choice of several masters and crews (coz I've got less sense than money and Malifaux rewards me for it) I will take the crew least suited and choose my members well in the nail-biting hope I can achieve my objectives and snatch a beautiful victory from the jaws of a cuddly teddy bear. For me that romantic image goes up like one of Zoraida's boobs in winter the moment that opponent reveals he has no respect for sportsmenship.

........

Puppets...

[Phalanx]

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?

I assure you that I agree that you disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll (that and the fact that I also agree that I probably won't change my opinion on the game's balance are pretty much the main things I agree with you on). One of the definitions of an internet troll is a person who posts heavily divisive questions or argues heavily divisive topics judging from this topic and the topic about females in Malifaux I would have to say that it looks like you enjoy being contrary to everyone else. Not only that, but in many of your examples you point things out but ignore the rebuttal that lies with your example close enough that I can't honestly believe that you didn't see it.

You use Warmachine as an example but then ignore the fact that you can have even worse match-ups there if people refuse to play anything other than one specific warcaster and list and you ignore the fact that just as you can mix and match models to warcasters in warmachine you can do that in Malifaux. You also ignore that there is an equivalent to Outcasts in Warmachine in terms of Mercenaries where you can have one list being Gorten and another being Talion Charter with no models in common. A common trick in trolling is to bring something forth that looks reasonable unless you're familiar with the topic, and that's what it seems like is happening here to me.

Back on topic, I don't think owning every model in a faction would be a big help. There is generally crossover between models and often a player will prefer one over the other no matter what mission it is. To that end a person who owns every model in a faction won't really have much of an advantage over a person who owns maybe 20% of the faction because most of the models will likely never see the light of day. I mean, theoretically the person with more models has an advantage, but in practice it's not really true because everyone has their own preferences and will generally prefer to use certain models over other models. For example, if Lilith works against forces AB, Pandora works against CD, Zoraida works against BC, and the Dreamer works against DA, then if the player enjoys playing Lilith and Pandora more than Zoraida and the Dreamer then owning Zoraida and the Dreamer won't really help because the player will be sticking to Lilith and Pandora in those situations. Obviously it's a bit simplified, but in practice that's the kind of thing that happens.

[Uncle]

You use Warmachine as an example but then ignore the fact that you can have even worse match-ups there if people refuse to play anything other than one specific warcaster and list and you ignore the fact that just as you can mix and match models to warcasters in warmachine you can do that in Malifaux. You also ignore that there is an equivalent to Outcasts in Warmachine in terms of Mercenaries where you can have one list being Gorten and another being Talion Charter with no models in common. A common trick in trolling is to bring something forth that looks reasonable unless you're familiar with the topic, and that's what it seems like is happening here to me.

Again, incorrect. Warmachine was brought up by someone other than myself--to be fair, I have a small amount of Khador and my original Menoth that I use and that's about it. Therefore, I am not overly familiar with the tournament scene in that game. Go figure, eh?

Instead, I responded to the points that were made, with what knowledge I have. I fully admit that it's possible to have two Warmachine lists for a tournament that do not share a single model, and that it's likely to be a relatively common situation. However, I will also state, flatly, that the scale of Warmachine is larger than that of Malifaux, and that the total investment in building two playable lists can be substantial, but is not quite the same as buying playable lists for all the Masters in your faction in Malifaux.

I fully admit I do not address all points made. Time constraints, you know?

One of the definitions of an internet troll is a person who posts heavily divisive questions or argues heavily divisive topics judging from this topic and the topic about females in Malifaux I would have to say that it looks like you enjoy being contrary to everyone else.

So it appears that what I should do is step back and go "Oh, there are vocal people who disagree with me. Better shut up, then." Sorry to have offended you by having an opinion that differs from the majority on two topics.

[Buhallin]

However, I will also state, flatly, that the scale of Warmachine is larger than that of Malifaux, and that the total investment in building two playable lists can be substantial, but is not quite the same as buying playable lists for all the Masters in your faction in Malifaux.

You can state it as flatly as you want, but you'd be wrong.

Picking a random new guy's 35 point Cygnar list off the forum totals right at $200. An Irusk list totaled out at around $225. (all price checks used online prices) Large model-count armies will be considerably higher - the Feora list I ran before I got out (which was pre-Mk II) was over $300. I'll disclaimer that by saying a lot of that is based on old prices, but whatever savings come from the plastic is probably offset by general price increases. At the very least, it's pretty close.

I already tagged the price for every Guild model at around $240, although I'll freely admit that's a semi-sane get-it-all, rather than your over-the-top version of getting everything.

So even if your ongoing assertion that you need every model out there is true - and it's worth pointing out that you still have yet to offer any actual evidence for that beyond your assertion - your claims simply are not accurate.

[tadaka]

At the risk of dragging it back to the original topic, is this actually the case with any matchup in the game right now?

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.

[Buhallin]

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.

But to be fair, that wasn't the original claim, nor was it my question. There are undoubtedly balance issues among the masters, but the claim being tossed around here is that they're SO BAD that the game is essentially decided before the first flip, and there's no point in even playing.

That's not the same thing as having to play very well or need a little luck.

[Uncle]

So even if your ongoing assertion that you need every model out there is true - and it's worth pointing out that you still have yet to offer any actual evidence for that beyond your assertion - your claims simply are not accurate.

Actually, I highly doubt you "need" every model to be competitive. But that does beg the question: exactly how many masters, minions, etc. would someone, in theory, need? I mean, on the one hand you have the Ortegas, the Dreamer, and Colette who can pretty much do it all and on the other you have the Gremlins, Nicodem, Marcus, and Leveticus.

Logically, you should have set ups for offensive play, defensive play, and mobility, but if any of your plans have an astoundingly bad matchup, you would need a backup crew "just in case." All this starts to add up quickly in a game of 6-20 models.

But to be fair, that wasn't the original claim, nor was it my question. There are undoubtedly balance issues among the masters, but the claim being tossed around here is that they're SO BAD that the game is essentially decided before the first flip, and there's no point in even playing.

I currently think there's only one or two truly "might as well not play" set up right now: Ophelia vs. Hamelin in a Shared Slaughter or Shared A Line in the Sand. In any other circumstance, I'd say the game might be stacked very heavily in favor of one player, but not to the extent of, say, 7th Edition WHFB Daemons vs. Ogres.

[Phalanx]

Again, incorrect. Warmachine was brought up by someone other than myself--to be fair, I have a small amount of Khador and my original Menoth that I use and that's about it. Therefore, I am not overly familiar with the tournament scene in that game. Go figure, eh?

Instead, I responded to the points that were made, with what knowledge I have. I fully admit that it's possible to have two Warmachine lists for a tournament that do not share a single model, and that it's likely to be a relatively common situation. However, I will also state, flatly, that the scale of Warmachine is larger than that of Malifaux, and that the total investment in building two playable lists can be substantial, but is not quite the same as buying playable lists for all the Masters in your faction in Malifaux.

I fully admit I do not address all points made. Time constraints, you know?

You were certainly acting like you knew the game well so forgive me for not realizing that you don't know that much about it.

I will admit that in terms of price Warmachine and Malifaux are quite a bit different. After all, most Warmachine lists will end up costing around as much as an entire Malifaux faction, especially if you start eying infantry such as Bane Thralls. By the time you have two distinct lists in Warmachine you will have spent enough money to afford two entire factions of Malifaux, possibly with enough left over for some mercs. If you can afford a 50pt Warmachine list then you can afford an entire faction of Malifaux.

So it appears that what I should do is step back and go "Oh, there are vocal people who disagree with me. Better shut up, then." Sorry to have offended you by having an opinion that differs from the majority on two topics.

Not quite. Having a different opinion is fine. I'm just saying that at this point it looks like you've started just arguing for argument's sake rather than believing that you can actually accomplish anything, and that would be trolling. You've brought up your point but you still have yet to show any proof other than claiming the hypothetical situation of one person buying Ophelia and another buying Hamlin and neither player are willing to ever buy anything else. You ignore the fact that the possibilities of bad match-ups is the drawback of having games where not every army is the exact same just to keep repeating the same thing. People have acknowledged that there are some bad match-ups in the game, which is something that all games have.

My real question to you is what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal in constantly bringing up Marcus and the hypothetical Ophelia vs Hamlin situation when everyone knows about it?

[Uncle]

You were certainly acting like you knew the game well so forgive me for not realizing that you don't know that much about it.

I know the game well--I've played it since it came out. However, I am not a particularly big fan of the system due to the attitude it seems to promote amongst its players.

My real question to you is what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal in constantly bringing up Marcus and the hypothetical Ophelia vs Hamlin situation when everyone knows about it?

Remember, there are at any given time several arguments going on in the thread, with various level of communication between individuals. The Hamelin vs. Ophelia situation gets brought up because it's an obvious game balance issue. That is all.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

As for the Nick comment he is great support master and summoner that can summon very tough minions such as samurai punks and bells. He is a great master with the capacity to win in many different objectives and schemes.

As for how many masters you need to be compete in a tournament would reasonably be 2 in anyone faction. I say this because I can think of 2 masters in each faction that can overlap in their ability to take on all strategies and schemes.

Perdita and sonia

Kiara and mcmourning

Pandora and Lilth

Colette and raspy

Gremlins and hamelin