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

[Ratty]

This seems to work against the statement for variety.

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.

The problem is then you end up with the Masters becoming Homogenised. To clear up confusion they have always said that Malifaux was balanced at the factional level. Yes they could balance at the Master level. But they made the design decision to balance it factionally to allow them to have more variety in the Masters. It's one of the best decisions they could have made. It means that even though I now have 8 Masters none of them play the same.

When playing in store this doesn't matter to much as you really decide with your opponent which Masters you will use. A lot of the time I will take Masters that are hard to win with. However at tournaments it does mean some Masters are at severe disadvantages in some rare situations.

TBH they haven't done a bad job balancing at the Master level too. All the Masters are reasonably equal chance of winning.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ratty

[Alphawog]

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.

I agree and have never been arguing for a single tournament style. I think that allowing locals to determine their tournaments is a fine way of handling the issue.

My argument have been in regards to the balance of the game. I could care less what tournament rules people want to play by, because even if Wyrd declared one specific set TO's would still house rule and make different tournament rule sets in a manner they and their players(hopefully) find agreeable.

[Alphawog]

The problem is then you end up with the Masters becoming Homogenised. To clear up confusion they have always said that Malifaux was balanced at the factional level. Yes they could balance at the Master level. But they made the design decision to balance it factionally to allow them to have more variety in the Masters.

I would like to know where this was said, as it may determine my willingness to participate in any tournaments(if any happen locally).

EDIT: It appears this blog makes mention of it:

http://carpealea.blogspot.com/2011/03/game-balance-don-quixote-of-wishful.html

they haven't done a bad job balancing at the Master level too. All the Masters are reasonably equal chance of winning.

This is good to hear.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Alphawog

[ukrocky]

@Hookers - The 3+ List comment wasn't a 'write 3 malifaux lists and bring them' it was a comparison to the H/WM tournaments where you all bring 3 lists, show each list before the game to your opponent then choose 1, and have to use each a minimum of once...** So would have parralels, but not be the same as, fixed faction.

Ie, I see half tournaments being fixed faction, half being fixed master

**Idea time! - So for fixed faction, how about pre-tourney, you nominate your faction, and all the masters you are bringing for that faction. You then have to use each master a minimum of once across the weekend? (Obviously only works for 2 dayers...?). It might force players to think about their masters...

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

@Hookers - The 3+ List comment wasn't a 'write 3 malifaux lists and bring them' it was a comparison to the H/WM tournaments where you all bring 3 lists, show each list before the game to your opponent then choose 1, and have to use each a minimum of once...** So would have parralels, but not be the same as, fixed faction.

Ie, I see half tournaments being fixed faction, half being fixed master

**Idea time! - So for fixed faction, how about pre-tourney, you nominate your faction, and all the masters you are bringing for that faction. You then have to use each master a minimum of once across the weekend? (Obviously only works for 2 dayers...?). It might force players to think about their masters...

Not a bad idea, but may have troubles if the person doesn't have all the masters in a given faction. You may be handicapping the guy with 4 over the guy with 2. Interest idea, I'm not a opposed to it.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I agree and have never been arguing for a single tournament style. I think that allowing locals to determine their tournaments is a fine way of handling the issue.

My argument have been in regards to the balance of the game. I could care less what tournament rules people want to play by, because even if Wyrd declared one specific set TO's would still house rule and make different tournament rule sets in a manner they and their players(hopefully) find agreeable.

You do realize this is a thread about balance in Tourney's right? There was another thread devoted to the generally balance issue. All my comments in this thread are based on the concept of Tourneys.

As for earlier comments that I have upset you with, I sincerely apologize.

I do realize gaining ground allows for 3 different styles of crew building. So it is official that tourney's can be run with all the ways listed in this thread. As for the most balanced it is as designers stated Faction based.

A few guess as to why they don't do all comer list no matter faction:

1. Theme (probably biggest reason)

2. Faction balance is the priority design concept

3. Earlier stages of games in later years we EricJ has hinted that you might get extra points for owning something out each faction

4. Balancing biggest wallet with low budget gamers

It is in the best interest of a company to make something that you want to buy and will continue to buy in a periodic fashion.

[ukrocky]

As for the most balanced it is as designers stated Faction based.

Thanks for the debate on the rest of it, I wasn't gonna reply but this bit, quoted. Is what we're more or less arguing. Is it more balanced for faction or master? It might have been the intent for it to be faction, but IMO, master is more balanced.

Anyhoo, old ground and all that, thanks for the debate guys, I think it'll take a year or so for it all to settle and people to see what'll work. No doubt as more tournaments take place, we'll work something out!

[Alphawog]

A few guess as to why they don't do all comer list no matter faction:

They do have an open faction listing in gaining ground. I was asking why no one was supporting that? As it is the extension of the next step in options from faction fixed.

That being said, it appears somewhere someone official has stated that the balance is based upon faction. Which IMO knocks the promise down a peg for those of us that not only have to convince ourselves to spend but our friends.

EDIT: ADDED Way better sales pitch with fewer mini's and much less likely for a spoiler list from power gaming buds to rain on the more casuals fun.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Alphawog

[Adran]

The guild is an extreme example, but in a balanced by master vs balenced by faction you are looking at possibly owning a difference of 3 models, as each master can happily take every minion, and use them in different ways.

As soon as you go beyond starter box list you introduce number of models owned as a factor.

I have played Lady Justice crews at tournements containing just about every guild model form the first book. They have been competative in different roles.

But it is a degree of diminishing returns. Owning 2 starter boxes does not make you twice a likely to win as owning 1, but it does increase the chances. But the difference between owning every guild model, and owning all but Nino is not huge, despite the power Nino can bring to the guild force.

The purchase of a boxed set and a few blisters can make a reasonable crew for any master, with a chance of winning any game against any other foe. You're just more likely to find people capable of playing the counter to your crew if you don't have a plan B.

Personally I don't have a preference in tournement style, I'll happily play anything from completely fixed list, to open faction each game. They test different skills.

[Serigala]

Very few people would be willing to play a game in which they will have 95% chance of losing every game because of imbalance.

Well some people still choose Marcus...!

[ukrocky]

I've chosen Marcus for my next tourney master...

[Serigala]

I've chosen Marcus for my next tourney master...

Maybe he'll perform better in Warmachine!