Malifaux discussed on Infinity forum

[Hookers]

PanO is the easiest army to use for beginners if all they want to do is shoot. OP? No, because they will get owned by experienced players with almost any list.

HMGs do not break the game. You can simply avoid the HMG nests and force that opponent to move to another position if he wants to put that HMG to use, setting traps along the way or catching him at an inopportune time. Cordinated orders, camo, AD troops, hackers, smoke, infiltrators, template weapons, fireteams, suppression fire, parabolic fire, snipers, and simple critical hits are all equally affective against an HMG. Terrain does make a difference in the game, its essential to the balance. That is one of the biggest drawbacks of Infinity because it makes it resource intensive to get a game fired up.

That is exactly my point. Those are things that people with little experience with Infinity find broken. A good player knows how to get around them. Its the same for Malifaux.

[Odin1981]

Ok I'm just coming into the thread here but do people not understand that the game designers have stated that the game is not balanced master to master?

One of the complaints I always here is master x destroys master y so z is unbalanced. Now I do know that if one player only has one crew and the other only has that as well it can throw a monkey wrench in the equation. But people who designed this game have explicitly said in posts here or on podcasts that the " balance" of the game is based on faction to faction.

Looking threw entire factions I think alot of detractors to specific situations would actually be able to see that hey crew x when I take a, b, c is fairly contained to be able to take on a specific crew in stratedgy/schemes.

Now I understand some matchups are kind of harsh for opposing players but if you do focus on completing your stuff and just shortchanging your opponent one one of his/her 3 missons for lack of a better term it is not really hard to be able to pull out a succsessful match up.

I do understand their are variables to what I just mentioned above. But is it that too hard to expect someone to not research crews and such if it is a high likelyhood of playing (example say you are in a league and play 1 game a week is it really to time intensive over the 164 hours of the week leading up to your play night if you know player X plays faction y so I should take a little time to familiarise myself with the ins and outs of what they can do).

[Math Mathonwy]

@Math

Stop quoting me dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Have I played all of those games, no. I have, however been playing ttg's for 12 years and have played enough games, including a few of the ones you listed, to be able to form my own opinions. Next time you quote me to try and take a shot at my argument, how about you quote some information that's actually relevant to the discussion. Thanks, bro!

Sorry for calling you on your wild claims.

[Buhallin]

Ok I'm just coming into the thread here but do people not understand that the game designers have stated that the game is not balanced master to master?

A lot of people haven't heard it. Of those who have, a good number either disagree with it, or just actively ignore it. <shrug>

@Magno: I agree a bit about the similarities between WarmaHordes and Malifaux - but the devil's in the details, so to speak. Do both give a similar bonus for charging? Yes. Do both have a resource mechanic? Yes. But you really have to get down to a micro level to find those similarities. When you look at how the games actually play and flow, they're completely different. Alternating activation vs. I-Go-You-Go, flexible AP spending vs. move/shoot, caster kill vs. strategies and schemes... At the end of the day it doesn't matter how many similarities you can find if the games don't play the same. I'm sure that if I looked I could find similarities between 40K and Infinity - look! Dice!! - but those similarities don't make the games the same.

I like a lot of your ideas relating to story, but I think the problem some people here have is that it feels a lot like you're calling out Wyrd and Malifaux for something NO minis company does right now. I actually think Malifaux is a step up on that front from most - the achievement league concept was pushed and developed by several of the Henchmen, and is a vast departure from what I've typically seen in most organized league play. It seems like a nice step in the direction you're promoting.

So even agreeing with what you want, why single out Malifaux for failing to deliver it?

[Justin]

hmm...does anyone else think this thread is about done?

[ispep]

I'm not sure what all the fuss over story is. If you want fluff, read a book. If you want to play a game, play a game. Both elements have a time and place, and they don't need to be together all the time. The last thing I worry about when I'm playing a game is how the game fits into any story that may be associated with the system, because the story isn't the rules.

Its like lolore nerds in WoW. So what if by cannon holy energy hurts the Forsaken? An undead holy priest in the story would make no sense, but for gameplay it doesn't matter. Or all the people who said Tauren shouldn't be paladins. Just because they don't worship windchimes doesn't mean they can't retcon enough background to make it work.

[allan255]

(1) game A is bad, i prefer game B

(CC: 2 / Rst: - / Rg: 4) every player have to debate until closing time.

Just kidding ;P

[Magno]

If the game designers have openly said, "the balance is in the factions", then that to me is an admonition that the game is not meant for competitive play at a singles game level.

That to me says either that is a fire-fighting statement to deal with imbalance or that they've had bigger plans from the beginning, but we've yet to see those plans come to fruition.

It may seem like I'm singling out Malifaux, but believe me its just tough love. We can fire up a discussion about some other game systems and I'll fire up my chainsaw.

[Nathan Caroland]

Checkers.

[Absolution Black]

Checkers.

Too hardcore for me....I'm outta here!

[Magno]

Checkers.

Diplomatic and easy, nice. <bwaarrrr-bwarrrrrrr>

Ok, how about I throw some "poo" with peppermint and glitter.

Undeniably, after every game of Malifaux, despite any misgivings we have of the game that just unfolded, we always feel the same way, "lets play again."

Strange predicament. I play Warmachine once and I'm satiated for a year and immediately think, "Why haven't I sold this last army?"

I look at a mini of Malifaux and see a personality floating around that model, a story waiting to be told, a compelling need to see it interact and narrate something on the tabletop. No other game has this same affect. I guess this is why I hammer on about something different about events.

When I see imbalances in the game I don't think the designers did a bad job, I see what are these folks setting up for us that other games and their imbalances seem to simply scorn me. The imbalances in Malifaux don't seem accidental, they feel intentional and coordinated. Again, another reason why I hammer on about something beyond what other games can offer.

I've stated similarities to WM (an assault to folks creative endeavors and efforts I see that), but I've also stated separations and evolutions

that to me are still to be explored.

[Nathan Caroland]

Connect-Four.

[paradox]

Checkers.

Connect-Four.

Way too boring and one-dimensional. Not nearly enough hobby aspect. Absolutely no backstory. Not well supported. Completely undeveloped mini line. PPP.

[Vlad the Mad]

Although some people seem to be pushing for this thread to be closed, I must say I really enjoyed reading this thread, and to a lesser degree the one on the Infinity forums.

Quite a few interesting opinions have been put up for discussion, and discussed in a civilized and constructive way. I used to play WM Prime, and I'm currently playing Malifaux, Infinity and a few other systems, but don't have enough time to do this discussion justice. But please, go on, give us some more brain-food!

[Necromorph]

@ Hookers and Magno's conversation about PanO.

Uhm...Hookers? Guild? Basically Guild are the HMG wielding PanO of this game. Stand and Shoot. Pretty much the motto of both groups. Do Guild break the game, no, even though I hate them with a passion, but game breaking, no. It's the same thing with PanO. To a new player who doesn't understand their army or the tactics of the game, then yes, PanO and Guild will seem incredibly overpowered, but in the end they are just about as good as every other faction, they just take longer to learn how to defeat.

I dont think its fair or balanced, I agree with you, but I dont think it should be.

It's kind of a douche saying, but when I worked for GW we would always joke about the new codex being this months tournament winner, the manager always would say "if you want perfect equality you should go play chess or checkers."

The competetive aspect of the game is to create bad matchups, If I'm fighting ressers I tend to use lists that attack willpower or have bonuses to damage flips or have a high minimum damage. Raspy does not like fighting von schill, pandora hates it when perdita or lady J's entire army shoot her in the face.

True true, but then again, there is a difference between a "tough matchup" of say like 60%-40% chance of you losing vs. a 90%-10% chance of losing. I'll draw this back to infinity for one quick second by reiterating my statement that really, if you're a decent player, any faction can win. Is infinity completely balanced, no, but at least you know that whatever faction you pick to play, you have a decent chance to win. In Malifaux, when you're against that 1 of several masters/crews that really wrecks your face, and you flip that bulls**t strategy you hate, you can be awesome and still have an incredibly low chance of winning before you even put your models on the table.

[Borthcollective]

Connect-Four.

Pretty sneaky Sis!

[Ratty]

Way too boring and one-dimensional. Not nearly enough hobby aspect. Absolutely no backstory. Not well supported. Completely undeveloped mini line. PPP.

I quite like playing it in 4 dimensions.

[goblyn13]

I quite like playing it in 4 dimensions.

speed connect-four?

[Ratty]

speed connect-four?

nah.. 4 spacial dimensions..

Normal Connect 4 has columns layed out in the X-Dimension, and you drop down pieces in the Z...

Now imagine you have 7 rows in the Y-Dimension. So your bottom layer isn't a line it's a square and you pile pieces in from the top. So it's 3 Dimensional Connect four played in a cube.

Now imagine your bottom layer is a cube and your dropping pieces in though a extra spacial dimenision and the playing area is a 4-Dimensional Hyper-Cube.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Ratty

[nilus]

Example of a story event:

20 players

5 factions

4 players per faction, each wielding a different master, so you have essentially four player teams.

Event is 4-5 rounds.

Round#1: you pit one master from each faction against one of the other factions. The scenarios/locations are pre-set. Each scenario has consequences that lead into the next round based on how players performed.

In subsequent rounds, players rotate to play a different faction, that way they each play one of the other factions.

But, scoring isn't just a summation of each factions performance, maybe each faction is trying to accomplish a communal goal of some kind (like a "Choose your own adventure book"), something linked to the fluff or a future story line. Something that also affords cross-faction collaboration to deny another faction its goal.

Each round of scenarios are catered/driven by the results of the previous round adjusting the asymmetry with the location events or objectives.

Something so that end of the event, all the players are slapping each other on the back and reminiscing about the story they all just created. You could have prizes, medals for the best faction if need be, but players that didn't fare well by the standard tourney format, still have a level of accomplishment. Some of the "weaker" players would be more than satisfied that they have something to contribute and don't feel pressured to perform or give up after loosing the first round.

This would be monumental to set-up but would be epic and something truly to remember and something that could be done only at a venue like GenCon.

Or maybe Adepticon

YOINK! Steals Magno's idea and runs off and begins planning

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[nilus]

I think part of the issue is that there is a group of players that wants a competitive organized play setting(like the other games). Even worse those competitive players tend to be the most vocal and also the ones that spend the most money.

I think Wyrd is still learning how to do Organized play for Malifaux but I think Gaining Grounds is a good start. I'd love to see story events more in the future. I also think Malifaux low model count makes it great for mini-con leagues. Since people can lug around 6 models in that bag and throw down almost any time.

[Wodschow]

nah.. 4 spacial dimensions..

Normal Connect 4 has columns layed out in the X-Dimension, and you drop down pieces in the Z...

Now imagine you have 7 rows in the Y-Dimension. So your bottom layer isn't a line it's a square and you pile pieces in from the top. So it's 3 Dimensional Connect four played in a cube.

Now imagine your bottom layer is a cube and your dropping pieces in though a extra spacial dimenision and the playing area is a 4-Dimensional Hyper-Cube.

That would make for a rather boring game to be honest.. Unless you impose some more limitations on how you can place your pieces whoever goes first will always win..

In an infinite two-dimensional grid the one who starts will always be able to connect four pieces, which is why there's been added sides and gravity to Connect-Four to prevent this or alternatively you play connect-five instead. If you just added two more dimensions (or even one for that matter) to a regular Connect-Four you would have to make more limits to balance the game out..

Edit:

One way could be to add more players.. But it'll probably just turn into a constant fight to prevent whoever got the first move from winning untill one of them makes a mistake and they all lose.. lol

Edited July 25, 2011 by Wodschow

[Buhallin]

If the game designers have openly said, "the balance is in the factions", then that to me is an admonition that the game is not meant for competitive play at a singles game level.

Not 100% sure what you mean with this, but I'll take a shot - I'm assuming that "singles game level" means "fixed crew".

In which case you're right, and that's exactly what they've said. The recommended play structure is selected faction and strategies, with those known for both sides before crews are selected. Does Hamelin give gremlins fits, and is it pretty much a guaranteed loss in a Shared Contain Power game? Certainly. Which is why you know you're facing Outcasts in a Shared Contain Power, which might include Hamelin, and you go for the Viks instead.

As mentioned above, a lot of people seem unwilling to accept this idea. But by most accounts, when played this way the game is relatively balanced. Playing a game differently than intended changes the balance - trying to play Malifaux with fixed crews, or without strategies and schemes, or with a master kill=win, isn't the way it's intended. So yeah, when you go there it's going to cause problems.

[Dolomyte]

As mentioned above, a lot of people seem unwilling to accept this idea. But by most accounts, when played this way the game is relatively balanced. Playing a game differently than intended changes the balance - trying to play Malifaux with fixed crews, or without strategies and schemes, or with a master kill=win, isn't the way it's intended. So yeah, when you go there it's going to cause problems.

Buhallin has it. This is in no way a fixed crew game. If you want to run a story league or story campaign that would be fine, but your going to have bad matchups / strategies and your going to take losses because of it.

In the 10 or so tournaments i've been to, with about a high of 20 players, every single one has been a faction select tournament. IE. I'm playing Arcanists, and I build my list after I know the strategy every. single. round.

I completely agree with everyone who says this game is not competetive as a fixed crew game. I would never play in a fixed crew tournament unless it was a story driven type thing.

[Buhallin]

I would never play in a fixed crew tournament unless it was a story driven type thing.

Since I'm running a fixed crew tournament soon, I'll add something to this

We're still growing Malifaux in our area. I selected fixed crew specifically because it's friendlier to new players, requiring fewer models to get involved. Is there the potential that someone ends up with bad matchups? Definitely... That's the tradeoff I have to deal with.

But that said, my preference is for fixed faction, and future events will be run in that style.