An interesting question asked about tournaments...vs H/WM

[Hookers]

I couldn't imagine playing in a fixed master tournament. It would completely ruin the game for me.

The only time it might be a good idea is for the first "introductory" tournament if you have all new players and have it be at 25 stones. Even then it might put people off because if you run into a tough counter you might feel like there is nothing you can do (ie. like every other game out there, Warhammer being the worst offender) when in reality you would just choose a different master and crew from your faction and be on equal footing.

[Satyrwyld]

I have an all-comers Pandora list that works fairly well, but even that has felt constrictive at times. I wouldn't mind being "stuck" with Pandy, but I've seen fixed list tournaments, and I'm really not interested in doing that again. Ick.

[CannonFodder]

I agree fixed masters are too stringent unless all the strategies are known in advance, but I doubt thats the case. I know the idea of premade list didn't go over well, but at it should be considered. in our WM\H steamroller event we have 2 lists, we go to the table and see the scenario and our opponents lists. then we get to choose 1, based on what we think our opponent will chose. basically we bring 1 list for pushing other around the table better for objective taking and one for brutality.

due to the wide variety of strategies 2 is not enough, 3 should do considering you can reflip the strategy.

now do they need to be fixed faction. that is a different argument. I personally would only enforce that on a tournament if there was some sort of faction prise.

[CannonFodder]

fyi, i bought some 30, 60 & 90 second timer and see if I can get someone who wants to try times activations. I'll tel you want we find.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

If you go outside faction lists then you are really take away from the style of the game. You should only have a mild idea of what your oppenent is bringing based upon know what faction they are bringing to the table not what list they may bring. The great thing about this game is this not a list game. It is not so rigid.

When I play with my guild I play a master based upon the faction I'm playing against and crew based upon strategy. When I play neverborn I play master to and crew to strategy. When I play arcanist I pick master to strategy and crew to faction.

I'm not saying my way of playing is the right way but a fixed list even a couple would really restrict how I would play. And like a few have posted 2 masters is really all you need for a tourney so this is not a game which gives advantage to the person who owns a whole faction line.

[Serigala]

I think any system of restricting timing within turns is going to be overly complicated. A chess clock could limit total time each player has, but unlike WM where the opponent has nothing to do during their opponents turn (or even 40k or Fantasy where there is little to do other than make saving throws) Malifaux has constant interaction, making it very hard to really know who's time is being used up.

In an earlier thread I suggested that a tournament could start with longer rounds, and these get progressively shorter through the day. Newer players should expect to have greater familiarity with their crews after a game or two, and in a system of Swiss pairing, should be playing with opponents of similar ability later in the day (avoiding the accusation that more able players were hindered by the slow play of weaker players).

Might also ramp up the tension a little towards the end of the day.

[Alphawog]

On the talk of faction vs. fixed master. As a newb I'd prefer fixed master maybe two master at most. The reason is simply money. A playable force for Malifaux is much cheaper than WM/H or Warhammer/40K, and I'd like to see the game remain lower cost even at the "competitive level."

Secondly, dealing with balance by saying don't play this master versus this faction is not really any sort of balance. There isn't a completely balanced wargame out there unless it only allows one list (or go), but I feel balance is a good goal to strive for. Each master should be viable against any other master even if at a slight disadvantage. If the tournaments are set up to allow for these hard counters, they will never be balanced out. More than likely they will end up being a staple of the game and a rock/paper/scissors balance will be created.

EDIT: Although I have not played much, I feel Malifaux is well equipped to handle balance issues due to schemes. Unlike, some other games you can pick your own objectives. This IMHO is the most unique, interesting, and defining part of the Malifaux rules (cards have been done before BTW).

Edited May 23, 2011 by Alphawog

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

On the talk of faction vs. fixed master. As a newb I'd prefer fixed master maybe two master at most. The reason is simply money. A playable force for Malifaux is much cheaper than WM/H or Warhammer/40K, and I'd like to see the game remain lower cost even at the "competitive level."

Secondly, dealing with balance by saying don't play this master versus this faction is not really any sort of balance. There isn't a completely balanced wargame out there unless it only allows one list (or go), but I feel balance is a good goal to strive for. Each master should be viable against any other master even if at a slight disadvantage. If the tournaments are set up to allow for these hard counters, they will never be balanced out. More than likely they will end up being a staple of the game and a rock/paper/scissors balance will be created.

EDIT: Although I have not played much, I feel Malifaux is well equipped to handle balance issues due to schemes. Unlike, some other games you can pick your own objectives. This IMHO is the most unique, interesting, and defining part of the Malifaux rules (cards have been done before BTW).

Keep in mind you might not like the whole faction balance system but that is the game design. So your statement that master to master isnt balance and should be means to revamp the whole game.

Also as many have stated 2 masters in this game will give you plenty of competency to win in a tourney. You don't need to limit to masters to keep a tourney balanced, if you did you will really imbalance the game because it is far easier to create an anti list knowing the 2 masters I will face versus the faction. The surprise element of the crew is there by balance by scheme selection.

You can't ever make a mini game like this balanced so to complain about it is absurd. The important question is it balances enough to play competitively nothing the current rules and game design? In this game I would say absolutely yes. Also it is important to not impose other gaming experience onto a new.game before first completely trying it first

Edited May 23, 2011 by Mr. Bigglesworth

[Alphawog]

Keep in mind you might not like the whole faction balance system but that is the game design. So your statement that master to master isnt balance and should be means to revamp the whole game.

I have made no qualms about my current status of not playing the game. My statements are pretty much purely based upon the other statements within this thread. There seems to be a split between those that feel that there aren't any hard counter lists and those that claim otherwise. I doubt a revamp of the "whole game" would be needed anyway, but it'll prolly happen sooner or later anyway. Even with giant betas it is tough to come up with 100% unbreakable rule set and a relative amount of balance.

Also as many have stated 2 masters in this game will give you plenty of competency to win in a tourney. You don't need to limit to masters to keep a tourney balanced, if you did you will really imbalance the game because it is far easier to create an anti list knowing the 2 masters I will face versus the faction.

If I am following this argument correctly you are basically re-stating the first part of this idea I put out:

If the tournaments are set up to allow for these hard counters, they will never be balanced out. More than likely they will end up being a staple of the game and a rock/paper/scissors balance will be created.

The surprise element of the crew is there by balance by scheme selection.

I haven't been talking about a fixed crew.

You can't ever make a mini game like this balanced so to complain about it is absurd.

I believe I already conceded 100% balance argument in my original post. However, to say balance shouldn't be considered or addressed is ridiculous. Very few people would be willing to play a game in which they will have 95% chance of losing every game because of imbalance. I know only a few people that completely lack the competitive gene. Most people that play games would like to win(its good for our ego), even if they are very casual players or pure hobbyist. By the same logic, we shouldn't bother improving the world around us because it will never be perfect.

The important question is it balances enough to play competitively nothing the current rules and game design? In this game I would say absolutely yes. Also it is important to not impose other gaming experience onto a new.game before first completely trying it first

Actually, at this point in my life I think I know what kinds of games I like. I also know what kind of games I do not like. I've already played the balance by faction type of games or the imbalanced by design. Honestly, they can be a lot of fun, but as tournament games they are not my cup of tea. Once I get a couple games in I'll have my own true opinion on Malifaux balance(which will probably not be 100% accurate and differ from most). My discussion hasn't been specific to Malifaux but merely about game balance in a general sense and what makes a good tournament game in my opinion.

This discussion is really balanced by faction versus balanced by master. I feel that the pro's of balance by master are far greater than balanced by faction.

Pros balance by master:

Cheaper cash wise to be on the competitive level, does not require multiple forces.

Play competitively the force you like.

More close and exciting games. Or less one sided matches due to rock/paper/scissors between masters(however you want to look at it).

Pros balance by faction:

Wins show an understanding of all factions and the current metas.

OK maybe I shouldn't have made the latter plural. If you have some pros I'd be happy hear them. I can't think of any more from the other side of the balance fence.

[Ratty]

You missed the main Pro of balanced by faction. You can have specialised Masters, or Masters that work in far more diverse ways. If you balance entirely by Masters you will end up having to homogenise the Masters to a point where it doesn't mater which Master you have they all start to feel a bit same-ey.

Pros balance by faction:

Masters can be more interesting and diverse.

You have to have an idea of how models interact with Strategies.

You will see a wider variety of crews played, rather than just the most competitive crews in the current meta.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Ratty

[Alphawog]

You missed the main Pro of balanced by faction. You can have specialised Masters, or Masters that work in far more diverse ways. If you balance entirely by Masters you will end up having to homogenise the Masters to a point where it doesn't mater which Master you have they all start to feel a bit same-ey.

I agree this is typically the case when the game is based solely upon the ability to kill/make the other side route. I think that Malifaux has the possibility to be more balanced while having interesting and different Masters because of the schemes. They don't have to stand toe to toe in any one single category.

You have to have an idea of how models interact with Strategies.

I believe this is a matter the number of interactions to understand rather than simply a binary concept.

You will see a wider variety of crews played, rather than just the most competitive crews in the current meta.

I differ in opinion on this one, I think a more balanced by master would allow people to play the masters they like because of aesthetic, play style, fluff or whatever other reason people like crews. Whereas I see balance by faction leading to meta dictating what is played in tournament. The weakest will be left out entirely except by those few only there to play and not compete(which in my experience stop showing for tournaments after getting trounced a bit).

[ukrocky]

I also see fixed master as a true test of a players ability. They have to look ahead to the tournament, know that they will likely have to complete X Y and Z objectives, and pick the right master for the job, knowing that master might struggle in Z but it's their best master for X and Y, so when they get to Z they might hire a minion or two to help out.

I see fixed faction as perhaps too easy in terms of strategies, whereas fixed master makes you consider your master carefully prior to the tournament, as opposed to just bringing 4 and picking the best one for the strategy.

I thought after reading this thread I'd get convinced onto fixed faction, but I'm still 100% set on fixed master...

[Ratty]

I also see fixed master as a true test of a players ability. They have to look ahead to the tournament, know that they will likely have to complete X Y and Z objectives, and pick the right master for the job, knowing that master might struggle in Z but it's their best master for X and Y, so when they get to Z they might hire a minion or two to help out.

Not really. I've seen it too often in WFB and 40k, people just play cookie cutter armies, you can even go on websites and just copy the best army verbatim. Is it any wonder you see such a limited mix of armies at tournament.

differ in opinion on this one, I think a more balanced by master would allow people to play the masters they like because of aesthetic, play style, fluff or whatever other reason people like crews. Whereas I see balance by faction leading to meta dictating what is played in tournament. The weakest will be left out entirely except by those few only there to play and not compete(which in my experience stop showing for tournaments after getting trounced a bit).

As every Master has a field they excel in. If you get a Strategy which involves movement you will choose the fastest Master not the Master that is best overall. If you have to choose an all comers list, you end up with less variety, than choosing the best Master for the current Strategy and Opponent Faction.

EG. Playing Guild everyone will choose Perdita as she is probably the best overall Master if they have to play a fixed list. However Lets say you get Distract as your Strategy, If your playing fixed faction maybe you would want to go with Lady J as she wants to be moving forwards rather than staying back. If you need to hold ground you will take Hoffman. So Rather than getting 5 or 6 players playing Perdita you end up with a wider variety of Masters over a 4 round tournament. Also people are more able to play the Master they want to as they know when they come against something they can't deal with they can swap in something else to deal with it rather than just losing the Tournament for playing a Master they like.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Ratty

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Fixed faction also allows for specialized play styles ss Ratty stated. If you see thisbas a flaw than go back to a game that has 2-3 objective based games.

The diversity of masters in each faction allows there to be a large amount of strategies. Also this is truly a skirmish game, not a war game. You are not fielding a full force but just a handful of people.

Also to say a master game is a true test of players ability is hogwash. That is just a test of list building. The decisions you make with your crew on the field is the test of a players ability. Also this game is not a fixed master design so you are arguing against the conceptual design of the game. I have never heard of a tourney where 2 people hand each here lists and say you sir have the better list therefore you win.

Also my statement of absurdity, if you read the paragraph you will see the content it is absurd to complain about balance issues between master to master only tourney when the game is balance on factions.

[ukrocky]

I know this is long, but we're going in circles and this might be my last post, please read it anyone that is for fixed faction as it's my full thoughts on it...

Not really. I've seen it too often in WFB and 40k, people just play cookie cutter armies, you can even go on websites and just copy the best army verbatim.

This is a flaw of 40k and WFB IMO (As I'll go into in the point below). I highly doubt this would happen in malifaux consistently (and oh boy, was it consistent in the others), courtesy of much better balance, as well as, yes, you could bring the killiest master ever, say, perdita got a major boost, but as soon as your master needs to do something in combat etc, you'll struggle, so no master is perfect at every scenario, which is a good thing, as it forces you to way up the pros and cons of each list.

Is it any wonder you see such a limited mix of armies at tournament.

Again, it wouldn't happen in malifaux. In addition, I'd say 90% of those tournaments that I attended had 90% of the armies represented, and usually a good spread in the top 20...

As every Master has a field they excel in. If you get a Strategy which involves movement you will choose the fastest Master not the Master that is best overall.

But this will just lead to everyone choosing the same masters for the same scenarios. In addition, you'll just see people choosing schemes based on masters too, so people who can't bring 'scenario-masters', be it faction or money, will end up just punching themselves in the face over having to face X master in scenario Y AGAIN. If you're bringing all 4 of the guild masters for example, you really can win most scenarios instantly, and each master has a few schemes they excel at, whereas if one person can only bring, say, one neverborn master, and they face each guild master over the day in the scenarios they're good at, with schemes they're good at, they'll just want to die. As opposed to facing the same 4 masters, but with a chance in many of the scenarios, and with each player of the master having to think about when to use the schemes, ie, do you use the schemes you're good at with the scenario you're good at, or wait till you flip that nightmare scenario and choose your 'awesome-o' schemes then so you still have a chance to win?

If you have to choose an all comers list, you end up with less variety, than choosing the best Master for the current Strategy and Opponent Faction.

Again, you seem to doubt the massive balance that is malifaux. If there wasn't a balance, I might agree, but as is, I think any master can be an 'all comers' list, and there's enough variety as is.

As for choosing the master for strategy and opponent faction, it just forces repeat matches, explained below, with your Lady J example

EG. Playing Guild everyone will choose Perdita as she is probably the best overall Master if they have to play a fixed list.

I highly, highly disagree with this bit. I wouldn't say any guild master is better than the others with fixed *master* (Not fixed list), I for example use Sonnia as she is the one I wanted to use and I don't find her any less competitive than Perdita, nor would I find anyone else less competitive. Again, I get the feeling you don't think malifaux is balanced?

However Lets say you get Distract as your Strategy, If your playing fixed faction maybe you would want to go with Lady J as she wants to be moving forwards rather than staying back. If you need to hold ground you will take Hoffman.

Exactly! This is horrbile! Let's say I have X faction and I only own Y master. I attend 5 tournaments, and play against guild 5 times, each time happens to be in Distract. It means I play against Lady J 5 times, in a scenario she is 99% going to complete, and since they can change their masters, they just choose the 2 best schemes for Lady J, as they just won't use Lady J later in the tournament, so I concede 8 points every time, because my opponent could tailor their lists to a tee. How fun for me over 5 games, and it'd just be the same vs any strategy, every game I'd go into at a disadvantage because they're just choosing master Z who can do a, b and c really easily and next game choose master M who can do d, e and f really easily.

Now, if I come up against guild 5 times in fixed master, I'd perhaps expect to play each master roughly once, with perdita twice maybe. So the perdita player is forced to play outside of ditas comfort zone, and that is a choice the dita player made at the beginning of the tournament by choosing dita. Fixed master encourages variation of GAMES which is surely what we achieve. With fixed master, if the dita player flipped slaughter, I'd perhaps expect to face a half gunline, especially if I flipped something like distract. Whereas if they flipped distract, they'd have to change their crew to something abit more aggressive, but with dita, such that they give themselves the best possible chance, or they might even forego the scenario, try and prevent mine and choose 2 awesome schemes, and save their 2 rubbish schemes for slaughter and so on.

So Rather than getting 5 or 6 players playing Perdita you end up with a wider variety of Masters over a 4 round tournament.

You might get a variety of masters, but you get a huge lack of variety of games. Also, it's varied enough atm, as the games balanced

Also people are more able to play the Master they want to as they know when they come against something they can't deal with they can swap in something else to deal with it rather than just losing the Tournament for playing a Master they like.

Any master is viable, so any master can win a tournament. If they come up against a master they struggle against than:

a) They choose a crew to help out their master

They knew that prior to the tournament, and wargaming has always been like that, eg, if my old Tomb Kings came up against Warriors of Chaos I struggled but I knew I could still win etc.

I think my main point here is fixed faction *MIGHT* increase master variation, I don't think it does, but it MASSIVELY decreases game variation. Take a huge game sample, over the next 2 years, lets say I play guild in distract 20 times. I'd probably face Lady J 90% of the time in fixed faction, how fun, so 18 of 20 games were very similar. With fixed master, I'd assume I'd play each master roughly 5 times, give or take, increasing game variation, and thus the challenge of playing each different master.

If 2 players can both bring any master from a faction, say neverborn vs guild, then you'll just see mirror match ups constantly, with guild in distract going Lady J, and neverborn in X going Y every single time, as opposed to 2 random masters, which is surely the key to variation, and thus the benefit of the hobby.

Fixed faction also allows for specialized play styles ss Ratty stated. If you see thisbas a flaw than go back to a game that has 2-3 objective based games.

Specialized play styles isn't always good, as above. I don't see how you can say if I'm bored of playing the same master in the same scenario 99% of the time, I should go back to one with 2-3 objectives. That's a ludicrous argument.

The diversity of masters in each faction allows there to be a large amount of strategies. Also this is truly a skirmish game, not a war game. You are not fielding a full force but just a handful of people.

No, the diversity of wyrd wrote the large amount of strategies. If you allow full faction you decrease the variation in terms of each master playing each scenario, and increase X master playing Y scenario, so you decrease the diversity?

Also to say a master game is a true test of players ability is hogwash. That is just a test of list building. The decisions you make with your crew on the field is the test of a players ability.

Again, it's not fixed list, it's fixed master. And I think a master game is as much, if not more of a test of players ability as it forces you to come out your comfort zone and face against the odds, proving your abiltiy in the face of disadvantage. Surely allowing players to choose from every single unit and master in their faction is MORE of a list building test than bringing one master, as you allow them to perfectly tailor their list to each scenario?!?

Also this game is not a fixed master design so you are arguing against the conceptual design of the game. I have never heard of a tourney where 2 people hand each here lists and say you sir have the better list therefore you win.

Good to know you were in the Wyrd board room when they wrote the game. As for the 2nd part of that bit, it doesn't happen with fixed master as you still get to choose your crew, whereas if I play vs guild in distract, I only have X master, and he has access to full faction, then he WILL have the better list, and so WILL win, so fixed faction increases the likelihood of resolving games prior to games...?

Also my statement of absurdity, if you read the paragraph you will see the content it is absurd to complain about balance issues between master to master only tourney when the game is balance on factions.

There isn't a balance issue between masters, I don't really

understand this point?

Let's say in a year's time Wyrd bring out master 'Bob'. In fixed faction, anyone could take Bob. In fixed master, anyone could take Bob. Eventually, as with any other games system, looking at you WFB, comp would come about, but with fixed faction, it'd be much more difficult to comp bob, as all players in bob's faction would have to look over it, while those just using Bob would have to weigh up the pros and cons of the new Bob.

I think fixeed master increases the longeivity of the hobby, of tournaments and ultimatley is the best direction for the future, as opposed to the list tailoring, richest-man-wins scenario of fixed faction.

Edited May 23, 2011 by ukrocky

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Good to know you were in the Wyrd board room when they wrote the game. As for the 2nd part of that bit, it doesn't happen with fixed master as you still get to choose your crew, whereas if I play vs guild in distract, I only have X master, and he has access to full faction, then he WILL have the better list, and so WILL win, so fixed faction increases the likelihood of resolving games prior to games...?

[Ratty]

There might also be a person who goes in a different direction than that when deciding their master and crew.

Not to mention counterbluff,

Lets say you have Ressers vs Guild. Ressers have to do something like Reconnoitre which involves them taking board quarters and the Guild get something like Escape and Survive.

I need a mobile crew for Resurrectionist. The opponent knows this, so do they go with Lady J as she's good against Ressurectionists. Do they go with Hoffman as their Strategy needs them to defend their Master and he's the toughest Master, or do they assume that I will go for Kirai as she is the most mobile Master and go with Sonnia for the magic damage. Or do they play Perdita as they are most comfortable with her

And in responce I go with Seamus as he has the Belles to move him faster and because he is not effected too badly by Lay to Rest if the enemy takes Lady J. Do I take Kirai because she is fast. Or do I go with McMourning as he is probably the best Master to assassinate their Master?

There is really no set pairings.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Ratty

[CloudFang]

just thought i would cast my vote for faction... how exciting is it to have options and change things after figuring out strategies and your opponent? that to me is really very cool... makes a very interesting situation... the whole game has a different twist to me then pick a list and now your stuck... it also keeps it interesting because you can have a completely different crew every game of a tourney.

as far as player with the most cash wins goes: this in my opinion is crazy talk... practice and get good... and realize that creating any type of minis army isnt really cheap.. and it takes a while to get a well rounded nice looking force. i guess i dont get it? plus at some point just having the models doesnt win you any games you need to play them? do people expect to be able to by one box set and win tourny's? does anyone out there really just design one tournament list for a game, buy it and be happy playing that to win all the time and never getting more models? really?

[Alphawog]

Fixed faction also allows for specialized play styles ss Ratty stated. If you see thisbas a flaw than go back to a game that has 2-3 objective based games.

I feel so welcome, boy if everyone I meet that plays Malifaux is as nice and open minded as you, I don't see how this game could fail.

The diversity of masters in each faction allows there to be a large amount of strategies. Also this is truly a skirmish game, not a war game. You are not fielding a full force but just a handful of people.

Yes, skirmish is a beautiful thing, so why do you want it to require as many miniatures as a war game to be competitive.

Also to say a master game is a true test of players ability is hogwash. That is just a test of list building. The decisions you make with your crew on the field is the test of a players ability.

Actually faction fixed is more about list making IMO. I wouldn't say that one is a better test of skill than the other but it seems obvious a faction fixed tournament gives the edge to better list builders and those with a wider variety of models. I believe it is more a question of which skills are considered more valuable.

Also this game is not a fixed master design so you are arguing against the conceptual design of the game.

I missed where Wyrd stated this. While the rulebook may have that order of play, the tournament rules have a variety. Which is what was being discussed. If Wyrd thinks that the game can only work faction fixed then why offer fixed master as an official tournament.

Also my statement of absurdity, if you read the paragraph you will see the content it is absurd to complain about balance issues between master to master only tourney when the game is balance on factions.

And yet again we have the psychic statement. I think the absurdity has been your lack of civility in this discussion and your unwillingness to consider opposing ideas. Others have added their 2 cents from the faction fixed side without suggesting that people should not play the game if they don't agree. Ratty has done a much better job arguing this point, whereas your arguments continue to undermine it. Are you secretly a fixed master man?

[Alphawog]

Not to mention counterbluff

While I see the point, I have to say this situation is just as likely. I play Bob on a regular basis, Bob has 2 masters to pick between come tourney time, I have all for my faction. I know his limits and therefore there isn't a chance for counter bluff in many situations.

My point is basically that it is one more example of those spending more money improving their odds.

[Ratty]

While I see the point, I have to say this situation is just as likely. I play Bob on a regular basis, Bob has 2 masters to pick between come tourney time, I have all for my faction. I know his limits and therefore there isn't a chance for counter bluff in many situations.

My point is basically that it is one more example of those spending more money improving their odds.

The person with more models will have a slight advantage this is true, however if it was a graph it would level off severely after 2 Masters, as long as you have the right 2 Masters. There is so much cross skilling across masters. So if you wanted a tough defensive Master either Seamus or Nicodem would do. Kirai is stupidly fast, but Seamus is quite fast as is McMourning. McMourning is a melee monster, but a Kirai crew can throw out a lot of melee. That means that the right 2 Masters will cover most bases. However if you had 2 Ranged Masters that work similarly you obviously don't have the options of someone with 2 complementary Masters.

Also note, that a player that plays 4 Masters probably won't be as competent with all of them as someone that plays 2 Masters a lot. A lot of the time I will choose Kirai over another Master as I like playing her a lot and know her inside and out. But I might consider avoiding her against Outcasts and play Seamus instead.

The thing it really avoids is suicidal choices. Hamelin for example finds it almost impossible to win Slaughter. Rasputina has serious problems with Strategies that need movement. But most Masters can do well on most strategies.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ratty

[Alphawog]

just thought i would cast my vote for faction... how exciting is it to have options and change things after figuring out strategies and your opponent? that to me is really very cool... makes a very interesting situation... the whole game has a different twist to me then pick a list and now your stuck... it also keeps it interesting because you can have a completely different crew every game of a tourney.

I agree the idea of always being able to pick the best tool for the job is appealing in certain ways and definitely different than most other mini games. In my opinion I feel this positive is outweighed by the negatives. The game even at a fixed master with X ss of crew allows this same type of play to a lesser extent. Instead of changing the head you change the support to match.

as far as player with the most cash wins goes: this in my opinion is crazy talk...

I agree that the richest man in the world won't win a game if he isn't good. It's a question of who has the edge. Fixed master could mean (assuming masters are not balanced) that occasionally you have a steep uphill battle, but it will be somewhat random. With the same assumption of balance we can say the guy with the better toolset could typically choose to never have the uphill with few exception.

and realize that creating any type of minis army isnt really cheap..

Why should it have to be more expensive? One of the big perks of playing a skirmish game is that it is a smaller investment. Why ruin it? Its easier to get a buddy to spend $50-$60 to play the new game with you than if he has to spend $100 or more dollars. Granted most will play casually but for the tournament crowd a bigger investment to become competitive makes a bigger hurdle on getting people involved.

do people expect to be able to by one box set and win tourny's?

Why shouldn't a person be able to? If a box lets him field 30SS, why shouldn't it be competitive at a 30SS tourney. Granted this goes beyond the fixed master discussion, but in general most people are talking fixed master with extra crew to choose from. So in this case we're actually saying a starter and a few blisters to be competitive.

does anyone out there really just design one tournament list for a game, buy it and be happy playing that to win all the time and never getting more models? really?

A few, I'm sure. Most will end up filling out a bunch of options for their faction/masters or moving onto new faction/masters. And a some will collect like Pokemon.

My question to those in support of fixed faction(at least those that can answer with civility), why fixed faction instead of open faction? Its an option in the tourny rules and would add even more variety by the current logic as presented.

[ukrocky]

Hamelin for example finds it almost impossible to win Slaughter. Rasputina has serious problems with Strategies that need movement

Yes, but you know this when you take that master to a tournament, and as such save your 'awesome-o' schemes for these specific.

In all honesty, I think it's going to be an unresolvable debate and I foresee the following;

Malifaux will follow H/WM in that some events will run with one caster (Fixed master), whilst others will follow the 3+ list format (Fixed faction), thus providing more variation for the game, allowing TO's to choose which way to run, allow tournament attendees to choose their favoured way, and all in all, produce a varied and vibrant tournament scene.

[Alphawog]

The person with more models will have a slight advantage this is true, however if it was a graph it would level off severely after 2 Masters, as long as you have the right 2 Masters.

This seems to work against the statement for variety.

thing it really avoids is suicidal choices. Hamelin for example finds it almost impossible to win Slaughter. Rasputina has serious problems with Strategies that need movement. But most Masters can do well on most strategies.

Excellent argument. I just think the better solution would be to fix any auto-wins by evening up the masters if necessary. Could it be possible for Hamelin to simply avoid the strategy and win via scheme completion? Maybe Hamelin's crew selection should be looked at, or maybe the strategy could be reworked or replaced, or maybe each master should have a strategy that is an uphill battle and the random draw of the game occasionally getting the best of you will have to be taken into account. I've heard that Hamelin is quite good at many strategies so maybe an achilles heal is in order. A more moderate master might not have an easy time with any scenario but not any difficult ones either. I can't get behind the idea that picking a different Master is the best answer to balance.

[Hookers]

you can still make the same tactical choices with 2 masters as you can with 4. There is some overlap in their strengths and weaknesses for the most part if you have all 4.

I only have Seamus and McMourning. I am playing against the full guild line. I assume he is playing Hoffman so I have to play McMourning as Seamus can't do much against an all immune to influence crew. Thinking that I assume he will be playing hoffman he goes lady j, who will fair better against McMourning. But my choice of McMourning is simply the safer play since he can handle Lady J just fine as well. Seamus might dominate or be completely screwed.

Similarly if I'm against outcasts, I have to go Seamus. Leveticus and Hamelin will tear McMourning apart. Seamus can still hold his own against the non-WP outcasts crew, so he is the safer play.

Also 3+ lists? I can honestly say I have never played the same list twice in this game, ever. Some have been really close (+/- a dog or two, etc) but I've never used the same exact list more than once. I choose a different list based on my opponent's faction, his strategy, my strategy, or the shared strategy, and every time have used a different crew because the game is so variable I haven't played the same master with the same strategy against the same master and strategy more than once. Closest would be Lilith v Som'er in shared line in the sand, but one time I was defending and one time I was attacking. Completely different.