Malifaux discussed on Infinity forum

[Necromorph]

As a friend of magnos we have discussed this before. I didn't read his thread on the infinity forums but in all honesty, and nothing against wyrd because I love malifaux , but infinity is probably the most balanced game system I've ever played, and I've played just about all of them.

There are no no really OP combos or broken units per say. it really comes down to list composition, and skill more so than anything else. There is no "oh I'm screwed because I'm against x master or have y strategy" its all about bringing a balanced list and knowing how to use it. I feel like its harder to make a well rounded list in malifaux because a list that works against 90% of opponents might have almost no chance against anything from that last 10%.

Infinity's fluid style of play makes it easy to learn and the rules are easy enough for beginners but expansive enough for vets to get crazy with. Idk, I feel like the game plays much closer to a rts computer game that the standard tabletop game, with being able to react to your opponents actions. Don't know how many times I'm playing 'faux or 40k and go "damn I wish I could shoot back" haha.

I guess al this business just goes to say that while I love all of the games I play for different reasons, when I think competitive play I think Infinity, when I think fun, I think malifaux...and I cant help but agree that malifaux is less balanced for competitive play. In infinity, every faction is pretty damn near equal, in malifaux, its hard to say that marcus is equal to Pandora (random example there but you get the point).

Edit: agree with what nerd said. I like malifaux because its laid back and has awesome fluff, and there's no reason that it can't be played competitively. I just think infinity has a more balanced system for competitive play.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Necromorph

[Hookers]

There are no no really OP combos or broken units per say. it really comes down to list composition, and skill more so than anything else. There is no "oh I'm screwed because I'm against x master or have y strategy" its all about bringing a balanced list and knowing how to use it.

Infinity is very well balanced and every model is priced appropriately in points(can be one of the more difficult things in balance in my opinion). However, there are definite "you're screwed" moments because the worst and cheapest unit in the game can kill the best and most expensive unit in the game with a lucky roll. Crits make the game more interesting I think, but do you really want your final rounding in a tournament against an equally skilled opponent, going back and forth in a super close match, to come down to a lucky roll? I set myself up perfectly, gave myself the highest percentage to kill your guy and win, oops you rolled a crit I lose.

Malifaux is somewhat balanced around rock, paper, scissors, but because you can change your list and get to know your strategy and opponent's faction beforehand that balance is very well incorporated into the game. The reason it is not generally effective to bring a balanced list for all situations is because the game is not designed to do that. You have special thing you are trying to do, so bring the special people that allow you to do it. If you bring X master against Z master and have Y strategy and are completely screwed from the beginning then it's your own fault. You knew that you were going to be doing Y strategy, you should have brought Y master.

The history of minigames (read: GW) has somewhat forced people into thinking that you need to bring a list, a single all mighty list, that can do everything against everyone and who ever brings the best one wins. Not the case in Malifaux and the game is much more interesting because of it.

I agree with the sentiment that experience is more important for winning in Malifaux, but I think facing a Cutter or Swiss Guard for the first time is very similar to facing a master for the first time. If you think experience is not valuable in other game systems then you might be underestimating your own experience with them.

Edit: To clarify, the whole post isn't aimed at Necromorph, I just used his quote to spring board my train of thought. I use the term "you" in the most general sense meaning "anyone who plays miniature games"

Edited July 23, 2011 by Hookers

[Soundwave]

Everyone has a right to an opinion, it's just that some opinions are wrong.

[Hookers]

Everyone has a right to an opinion, it's just that some opinions are wrong.

and I always thought his name was Shockwave, not Soundwave :offtopic:

[Soundwave]

and I always thought his name was Shockwave, not Soundwave :offtopic:

Big difference! Shockwave is purple and stuff...

[Ciaran]

People just like different things I guess.

I read this (including the thread in the other forum) while running a Malifaux tournament. I thought it was funny that someone would say that this just isn't the game for any sort if competitive play.

I've looked into Infinity a couple of times and just don't care for it. It seems like it doesn't bring anything new to the table, even their reaction system seems to be a hack of the Chain Reaction system. It's just not for me, even in style terms. Anime? Really? Not for me. People love it, and I can't argue with that. I've said this before: I just don't think it's fair to state opinions as facts, then get angry when others disagree. Down that path lies madness....

[DireTrollJake]

IIRC, Magno was in our first Garden City tourney, and seemed to be all for the game...granted that was two years ago...

[paradox]

1. Why is it that ANY forum for game X always has to "fire back" on someone bashing game X, by personally attack the basher?

It's hardly being "the better person."

2. I know Magno personally. He was a local until he relocated (if I could get out of Michigan, I would too!). I played WM and Mali with him.

Magno does tend to criticize games he plays. I've seen it for ANY game he plays. One key point there: he DOES, or at least did, play Mali. He has first-hand experience, probably pre-dating several re-bashers in this very thread.

3. I have not read the link, but I bet I know what he's saying. RE: competative play, I 100% agree. In fact, it's a conversation I've had with him before.

Mali SHOULD NOT be played competatively. At least not in the way most competative formats are set up. Hopefully Wyrd works that out.

It is an outright mistake to play Mali by just throwing down sans Strategy/Schemes/Random events. That is part of what makes the game so different and workable.

Any game I have played without Schemes and Strategies I have regretted. It's just not balanced to work out that way.

Further, my limited experience with Mali tournies is that it takes too damned long. Perhaps a more experienced player-field will help that, but I find that doubtful. Keeping games to a reasonable time-limit results in a fairly low-size game. Of course, that in itself might be a good thing, as seeing another game scale up again would be kinda crappy.

Long story short, it's not smart to ignorantly bash someone, especially if you are bashing them as ignorant.

[Crooked Grin]

But... but... he started it

Seriously, of course everybody is entitled to their opinion and someon e not liking Malifaux is okay (I guess) but stating opinion as facts as he clearly does and saying things that simply aren't true is not.

[Cornelious1424]

Before you go and bash a system, learn about it. People are entitled to their opinions, but know what your taking about before you flap your gums. I tried to give the thread the benefit of the doubt, but after Mango's couple of posts I gave up. It may be easier to compare Malifaux to WarmaHordes, only in the sense that you use ready made characters with no room to change them, but to me, that's about it. I was gunna go on a rant here, about how they are different, but we all know these points.

As for Infinity...meh (IMO). I saw half of a game and wasn't really impressed. Trying to put to much realism in a tabletop game is always a bad thing, for me anyway.

[Necromorph]

@Ciaran

Agree. Imo, I just like the fluid and intuitive style of infinity over the alternating activation / static turn based systems....it just makes more sense in my head. I also agree that everyone is going to be into different things regardless what anyone else says.

It's just refreshing in infinity to see anyone have a chance competitively and not having tournaments revolve around the "top 5" armies, crews, lists, factions or whatever. I guess, though, if you're in it just for the pure fun then its all irrelevant. However it seems like the WAAC players might find malifaux a bit frustrating...."I'm gonna play an alp bomb so I can crush my opponents and make them cry!". *Hamelin casts (1) Irresistible Lure* "WTF, I quit!". Hahaha....still have yet to do that to someone...but it would be awesome.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Necromorph

[Jens]

When I started with tabletop a few years ago I was among those players who'd find a fault in some systems and tried to convince everyone of the superiocity of my current favourite system XY where those problems didn't exist. I was pretty much focused on the shortcomings.

It took me some time to realize I was looking at the games from the wrong point of view - it's much better to look at the parts you enjoy and what is unique about them. Sometimes there are some mechanisms I dislike too much to play a game on a regular basis (for me a long game period where I cannot react at all is something I dislike), but there is no reasons why others shouldn't enjoy it.

The only part that stops me from playing / trying even more games is the limited amount of time

(Edit: And often it's more about the opponent if I enjoy a game or not. If someone found a crew / army list etc.pp that 'brakes' the game / is not enjoyable to face and continues to play it over and over, I won't play with him again)

Edited July 23, 2011 by Jens

[Wodschow]

I like both Malifaux and Infinity.

Both games are very rules-heavy and have some innovative and refreshing mechanics in them. Infinity has a serious set of core rules and I doubt anyone can learn them from just reading through them, whereas the core of Malifaux is so much simpler, but each model has a bunch of unique talents. I suppose there's pros and cons to both of those approaches.

Hmm..A final random comment would be that I'm really not sure whether I'd credit Infinity for the hyper-realism that some people like to point out, mostly due to how free you are to spend your orders - spending ten orders on one guy while doing nothing with the rest of your force is -not- realistic in -any- way. Still an enjoyable and great tactical game though..

Another final note would be that there's actually no scenario system for Infinity at all (albeit one's coming in the next book, whenever that one will be out)..

[paradox]

But... but... he started it

Seriously, of course everybody is entitled to their opinion and someon e not liking Malifaux is okay (I guess) but stating opinion as facts as he clearly does and saying things that simply aren't true is not.

I went and read the thread (for completeness sake). I don't see any point where he states anything as a fact. It is clear opinion, unless you want to give his words full and final authority, which would be quite an unusual way to read a game forum.

[paradox]

Before you go and bash a system, learn about it. [sNIP]

As for Infinity...meh (IMO). I saw half of a game and wasn't really impressed. Trying to put to much realism in a tabletop game is always a bad thing, for me anyway.

This is pure irony!

[Dolomyte]

I agree paradox, I have seen people play malifaux as a caster kill game / annihilate game before, and its just terrible to watch. However I've never personally seen or played in a tournament that was run that way. Gaining ground specifically lists which scenarios you use. typically from the shared strategy list.

Using those strategies does create a highly competetive game, which is perfectly fine for a tournament.

[Necromorph]

@Wodschow

Yeah, spending all orders on one dude isn't awesome, but its part of the tactics...and I isn't always the best option as I'm sure you know. I think the realistic aspect is the reaction / cover use systems in the game more than anything.

The lack of scenarios doesn't bother me as much, because the design of the game let's you come up with your own scenarios and its hard to make something that doesn't fit with the game. Magno was the league / tourney organizer at the lgc in garden city before he moved to NM, and he came up with some awesome campaigns and scenarios to play through.

[Cornelious1424]

I agree, I don't know much about the game...but I did not provide false information based on my opinions of the game, trying to convince people to play Mali over Infinity. There was no bashing, I just don't care for Infinity's "realism", just not my thing.

[Mergoth]

and I always thought his name was Shockwave, not Soundwave :offtopic:

Sacrilege! This is Shockwave, cyclopean and gun arm-ed.

[Necromorph]

Didn't even see paradox's posts...but generally agree with pretty much everything you said.

On the competition note, I don't think malifaux is unplayable or shouldn't be played competitively, it just that most (not all) mali tourneys will be decided by the "top 5" or top 3 in the case of 40k...and things like that bother me a bit.

[Hatchethead]

"I'll do it, Pa."

*leads thread out behind the old woodshed*

*shoots it in the face*

[nerdelemental]

I went and read the thread (for completeness sake). I don't see any point where he states anything as a fact. It is clear opinion, unless you want to give his words full and final authority, which would be quite an unusual way to read a game forum.

I read it, and I read otherwise. He states the game's design and playtest methodology as fact which is very erroneous.

'Dox, you also reference different elements of the game in an earlier post but I think you have some facts mis-aligned as well. The last (and only?) event I remember you participating in for Mali was the big Pandy event which took place literally within the first month this game was released! And it was run by a guy with a reputation of taking his events late on the clock. So, here I'll shed additional light upon your take regarding the competitive possibilities of the game: Game rounds would run 80 minutes given the common SS size you'd play locally. In the last Flint event (which I had nothing to do with organizationally), we started around 1:30 and got three gaming rounds in and were done and BS'ing by 6:00. Officially, the game is still the game and no where would you find an officially run game that did not use Strategies and Schemes. We used the random and location specific events as well.

I prefer my Malifaux to remain non-competitive and played in a beer and pretzels, totally low-key environment. But that's almost entirely because the previous game system I supported so strenuously led to a colossal disdain for almost all organized play. -- you know...when real friends broke down into a dispute over a millimeter of facing and/or everyone started accusing everyone of weighting their dice for an edge and/or accusations of cheating sprung up two days after an event over an issue I ruled on... Sux to all that noise.

This one supports its own on a tournament foundation and because of the alternating activation mechanic I think it lends itself much better to true tournament play better than a system that can end with one misplaced piece or one sub-par dice roll, after I've waited 45 minutes just to have my turn back instead of the record keeping of damage I had to do...

I'd just rather play for fun and go home happy even if I do lose.

[Hookers]

Sacrilege! This is Shockwave, cyclopean and gun arm-ed.

me big noob :hidingpuppet

and back to topic, he says that its the same game as WM and provides specific examples of why, which are completely false.

that's fine that you want to defend him. everyone has pretty much said different strokes for different folks. I haven't seen much bashing going on. but he is giving specific details (designers in michigan, chicago, etc. are his words) and then providing further misinformation about the game. its ok that he doesn't like it. no one really cares. he is telling other people details about the game that are untrue.

that's all i pointed out. i haven't even said he is a bad person or have bashed him for doing so, i just said that that is what he did. any bashing going on seems to be perceived.

[Cornelious1424]

I'd just rather play for fun and go home happy even if I do lose.

The important part of the quote, "...and go home happy...".

This is so true with every game of Malifaux I've ever played. Even in a tournament/league setting, win or lose, I feel satisfied and a good time was had!

[Magno]

<storms in throwing sh*t all over the walls and pees in the punch-bowl>

AHAHAHAH! Just kidding folks, but let me wash some of this irony and hypocrisy off first.

First off to everyone here, I......like....Malifaux. A lot. I pack ten crews, have played a lot, have run many a demo and event, have promoted this game in MIchigan after its release and also here in New Mexico, two years later. I have made 4 tables worth of Malifaux specific terrain and actively steered people to try the game out in the LGSs.

Does this mean that I have to like everything about Malifaux? Should I agree that it is the greatest thing since string bikinis? No. In fact complacency and blind devotion are the surest way to let a game (or any product) rot away into obsolescence or inferiority.

@ Jens,

I'm very critical of many a system. I have standards like a prissy prom queen. I'm not openly trying to convince anyone of any superiority of any system at the Infinity forums. Unless you want to talk about 40k, then I'll gut that thing for the abomination it is. But I've helped sell many a Malifaux product while PLAYING INFINITY. But I'm not gonna send someone to the cash register without some forewarning. I also turn people away from Infinity if it matters.

@LamWyrd,

winning does not equal validation of a games ability to be competitive. If you guys are winning all the time, there is no competition.

Competition, the nasty side of it, the sour taste it can concoct are its own discussion, but anyone here who claims Malifaux is a balanced system is lying to themselves. Does every game need to be balanced? No. in fact asymmetry can be one of the most rewarding formats to play a game. But to have rankings, bracket tournies and leagues based on asymmetry is not how you should expect folks making equal investments to compete. To flaunt competition and your success thereof via an unbalanced system with paper-scissor-rocks, that's missing the point.

@Nerd,

man o man do I feel ashamed that I have to discuss things like this with you here, but I owe it to some of the folks here at this forum to discuss this in the open.

First, much of my opinion is based on my observations and discussions with not just you but many folks over at GenCon, Chicago and Michigan. If multiple systems and genres playtest like this, then I say they all suffer from the same issues. If you're gonna endeavor to develop a game under those premises, then there needs to be superb management of those resources, communication and info exchange. Trust me buddy, this isn't just a gaming issue, this is running any kind of intellectual development project. I had to do this at Ford, GE, NASA and now for the DoE. If you bake in low quality to a product, you're doomed to fight it till the bitter end.

Second, "two thousand people are bound to find more things than 40 people." Agreed. Especially when you establish right off the bat a highly asymmetric game, where almost every character and minion has their own rules. With this in mind, if the system still had all the errata issues it did, then it was still rushed. Was it the right business move at the time to release it, ohhhhhh yeah. We've talked about that. But those are crosses you guys have to bear and will be something you guys will be wrestling with for years. You've built that into the game.

So why fall to the pitfalls of most every other game? Why not continue the innovation? Something for which I give you guys enormous credit. My apologies for not making that clear at the CB forums.

The game is "character driven", right? You have compelling characters, linked stories in the fluff, brewing drama, tension, but this isn't necessarily captured on the tabletop. The game isn't anymore story driven than any other system. Why not have events or tournament formats where consequences are felt throughout the event? Where every player cares what took place on the other tables? Where the consequences of one round dictate the flow and set-up of the next round and present new asymmetries and obstacles for those characters to oversome?

Why does a tournament have to have a single winner? Why a winner at all? Why continue the zero-sum game of competition?

This is where Malifaux IMO could seriously separate itself from the pack and you have the seeds to do that.

I still stand by my opinion that Malifaux and Warmachine are very similar. If the competitive tourney format is still pushed, then the similarities and fan attitude only strengthens those similarities. If you pooled all the fantasy skirmish games into a room, these two would be like fraternal twins.

I'll challenge anyone to debate this. Could they be more different. Yes, very much so.