Malifaux discussed on Infinity forum

[Peterdita]

It's summer. Go outside.

:smiliebla

[nilus]

It's summer. Go outside.

:smiliebla

But its hot and muggy and there are tiger mosquitoes out there.

[Hookers]

@ 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.

um...wat?

Ok, I'm paraphrasing myself here but

that is exactly my point.

I play infinity. I know that PanO and HMGs are not broken. They are just the things that players who have little experience with the game think are broken. In the exact same manner as the complaints that someone with little experience with Malifaux might have that things are broken, or that certain masters fair poorly against other specific masters. Gremlins v Hamelin = broken. Well no Outcasts player in his right mind would ever field gremlins against another Outcasts player in a tournament.

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.

Oh... okay. I see. That makes much more sense now.

If that is what your opinion is based on then no wonder you have it. And you are completely right. They have had bigger plans from the beginning. It's in the first rulebook that was ever put out.

Step 1: Choose Factions.

Steps 2-X: Decide everything that is going to happen from terrain, to deployment, to strategies.

Step Y: Choose Crew.

It was designed that way. You have multiple masters. Some are good at this, and bad at that, some jacks of all trades, some get completely owned by a certain master. Pick the one that will be able to do what you are trying to do for that game. It's a novel concept but far from rocket science, and if you embrace it then the game is way more balanced. I can't name the best faction right now. Someone might be able to but #2-5 aren't far behind, if at all. Also its not all about the master either, you can hire models that will augment your master's weaknesses and complement their strengths. Again the models you want to bring will be different depending on the matchup and strategy.

From day one it's been balanced from that perspective. GW doesn't bother balancing its games and simply calls them "beer and pretzels" games while simultaneously holding world-wide competitive events. This is very different. Not only have they said it was balanced from the faction level from day one, but it is a design decision that makes the game one million times more interesting than games that require fixed lists in competitive play, in my opinion. It is not a simple cop out. Its why rock, paper, scissors works and why you can have varied, unique, and interesting models with varied, unique and interesting rules and abilities and have the game still be balanced. Sure rock beats scissors and scissors will beat paper, but what will my opponent throw? Since I know his faction and he knows mine, he will probably use rock and is highly unlikely to use paper, with scissors being a little more probable than paper. So I will throw rock. We will most likely draw and have to play it out from there, having both thrown rock.

I know I sound super fanboi, and buhallin already laid it all out, but that's how it is. People that play competitively don't own just a single master, just like the people that I know who play infinity competitively own at least one of every model in their faction.

[Dolomyte]

I appreciate this spammer, because not only is he promoting coach bags (which, im guessing most of us could care less about), he is also promoting office 2007.

To be honest, I thought to myself earlier today that I would love to go to staples and buy the newest version of office, but I simply dont have a nice enough purse to bring it home in. This dude was there for me.

[Iamwyrd]

But its hot and muggy and there are tiger mosquitoes out there.

We only got giraffe mosquitoes here. They only attack you if you burn their trees down. Lol

But it is for sure hot as hell outside. And I get to work in it. HURRAY!!!!

[Math Mathonwy]

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.

The only problem with that is that this is a skirmish game that is marketed as being playable straight out of the starter box. And that works for friendly games but then, if you wish to take part in a tournament, you'll need three or four Masters with maybe some overlap in minis but not necessarily (Outcasts, I'm looking at you) and suddenly you need something like 40 minis in order to play at skirmish game tournaments.

I dunno, has this really been the idea all this time?

Furthermore, I've understood that fixed Master tournies have been the norm in some places of the world. Is that a wrong way to play?

[osoi]

So far in our part of the world we have played fixed master, however I am looking at maybe something down the track for pick faction and thena pool of minions and then pick as many masters as you want form that faction but with a limited pool of minions and you cannot play a master for a second time until all masters selected have been played at least once prior.

A lot of what is driving the single master locally is that people are stil picking the game up and dont have heaps abvaailable so its trying to encourage them to particpate but not feel overwhelmed.

[Ratty]

The only problem with that is that this is a skirmish game that is marketed as being playable straight out of the starter box. And that works for friendly games but then, if you wish to take part in a tournament, you'll need three or four Masters with maybe some overlap in minis but not necessarily (Outcasts, I'm looking at you) and suddenly you need something like 40 minis in order to play at skirmish game tournaments.

I dunno, has this really been the idea all this time?

To play friendly games with your mates it's just a case of picking up a box and a couple of models.

At tournament level you really only need two masters that compliment each other. Any more than two and unless your the reincarnation of Alexander the Great you won't play all of them to their full potential which generally outweighs the advantage of having 3 masters. I'm a big proponent of get 2 Masters for a faction and learn them really well if your playing at tournament rather than spread yourself over 4 Masters and a Henchman.

Furthermore, I've understood that fixed Master tournies have been the norm in some places of the world. Is that a wrong way to play?

It's good fun, and great if you have lots of new players. However as a true test of skill you end up with the results being skewed by bad matchups. Over time if you will probably see certain Masters that have less bad matchups becoming more prevalent in the mix. IE if you can only choose one Master you better make sure it's the best one to deal with all solutions. If your playing Faction however you choose the best out of your selection each time so you get the more situational Masters getting play.

[Uncle]

The only problem with that is that this is a skirmish game that is marketed as being playable straight out of the starter box. And that works for friendly games but then, if you wish to take part in a tournament, you'll need three or four Masters with maybe some overlap in minis but not necessarily (Outcasts, I'm looking at you) and suddenly you need something like 40 minis in order to play at skirmish game tournaments.

I dunno, has this really been the idea all this time?

Yes, it's been the idea the whole time, and it's not one that makes for a particularly healthy "skirmish" game. Apologists will point out that Warmachine and Warhammer and similar games cost somewhat more to play, forgetting that you use substantially more than 10 models during the course of one of those games.

It's even more of a shame when people are only attracted to specific crews within a faction. If you like Gremlins, for example, but don't care for Leveticus or the Victorias, well, too bad. Buy more models so you can be "competitive!"

Furthermore, I've understood that fixed Master tournies have been the norm in some places of the world. Is that a wrong way to play?

It's not a wrong way to play, but it's not exactly balanced. On the one hand, you'll have the Dreamer or someone who really knows how to use Colette, and on the other, there's Marcus.

[Ratty]

Yes, it's been the idea the whole time, and it's not one that makes for a particularly healthy "skirmish" game. Apologists will point out that Warmachine and Warhammer and similar games cost somewhat more to play, forgetting that you use substantially more than 10 models during the course of one of those games.

Well the other option is for crews to be homogenized.

If you want wildly variable crews, you can't balance at the Master level. If you want the game to be entirely balanced at the Master level you can't have wildly varied crews.

It's a fact of game design. You have to make decisions.

I personally prefer this way of balancing as it means that to get an entirely new tactical experience, I need to pick up a new crew or play another opponent rather than playing an entirely different game.

It's even more of a shame when people are only attracted to specific crews within a faction. If you like Gremlins, for example, but don't care for Leviticus or the Victorias, well, too bad. Buy more models so you can be "competitive!"

This is true.. but what you find people doing is choosing their crews based on the faction rather than the Master.. Eg I like most of the Ressurectionist, so I'm mainly a Ressurectionist player and would play them at tournament. But that doesn't stop me picking up other random crews for casual play.

[nilus]

It's even more of a shame when people are only attracted to specific crews within a faction. If you like Gremlins, for example, but don't care for Leveticus or the Victorias, well, too bad. Buy more models so you can be "competitive!"

There are a few simple ways to help you out

1) Stop worrying about being "competitive". Its just toy soldiers

2) Learn to play your limited models really well and surprise your opponent. I have some local players who played just Gremlins in several open faction tournies and they have done really well. There is something to be said about the ability to fool your opponent into underestimating you. I have seen both Gremlin and Marcus players win tournies this way,

[Hookers]

It's even more of a shame when people are only attracted to specific crews within a faction. If you like Gremlins, for example, but don't care for Leveticus or the Victorias, well, too bad. Buy more models so you can be "competitive!"

It is the exact same in every game. Show me a game where you don't need to have models to be "competitive." You only have to be "competitive" if you want to be competitive. If you only like gremlins, then you will play the hell out of some gremlins and have a blast doing it. Competitive is not everyone's goal. I mean what about the people that were only attracted to Tau? Still waiting on a codex...

If is your goal to be competitive then, like ratty said, you need to simply buy one more master. It's not exactly super demanding. I have two masters for rezzers, and gremlins and von schill for outcasts and do just fine in tournaments.

The point is, the game certainly can be competitive, and was designed around the faction level which apparently people didn't know or weren't playing as. I thought it was very obvious, but perhaps not. If you want to be competitive in malifaux then it takes no more commitment than any other game. If you do not want to be competitive, then buy the gorgeous models that you will enjoy, paint them up, and have fun. Read the stories, play them out, play with your friends. If balance at the master level is preventing you from doing this, then tell your friend to tone it down so that it's even again. It's a friendly game right? If its a tournament simply buy one more outcasts master and you are just as competitive as everyone else. Gremlins can tear up rezzers, shoot back at the guild, and have a good chance against arcanists. If you are playing neverborn or outcasts just go with whichever other master you bought. It's easy.

[Uncle]

Well the other option is for crews to be homogenized.

If you want wildly variable crews, you can't balance at the Master level. If you want the game to be entirely balanced at the Master level you can't have wildly varied crews.

The other option is for the game to be balanced at the Master level and retain the distinction between crews. Truth be told, they're already pretty darned close to it, and it would just take dealing with a few outliers, like Marcus and Gremlins vs. Hamelin, to make it viable. But, of course, that doesn't sell as many models, does it?

Yes, that's cynical of me, I know. But, as I've mentioned in another thread, I dislike the concept of having to buy 20 models to use 7 of them at a time.

I personally prefer this way of balancing as it means that to get an entirely new tactical experience, I need to pick up a new crew or play another opponent rather than playing an entirely different game.

I don't even know what to say to this. You've taken the concept and ran so far with it that I don't think we're on the same continent. It is completely possible to have balanced Masters and still have a varied and tactical game.

It just doesn't sell as many models, since someone can buy one crew and be done.

This is true.. but what you find people doing is choosing their crews based on the faction rather than the Master.. Eg I like most of the Ressurectionist, so I'm mainly a Ressurectionist player and would play them at tournament. But that doesn't stop me picking up other random crews for casual play.

Strange thing is, I haven't found that in any of the stores I've played Malifaux at. Instead, I've found people who gravitate to a single Master and don't really care for the rest in their Faction.

I like Colette. I do not particularly care for Rasputina or Ramos and I find Marcus to be laughable. I think the Dreamer is nifty and that Som'er Teeth would be fun to play.

My brother likes Seamus and strongly dislikes the other Rezzers. He also thinks Ophelia is fun to play.

One of my most common opponents plays the Dreamer exclusively and isn't interested in any of the other Neverborn Masters.

In fact, there's only one person I know of who collects a faction and that's the Guild guy, which I can understand--the Guild is very visually meshed, whereas the other factions are not.

Perhaps the situation in Houston is strange--we're very much in the "casual and growing" stage here--but I just don't see a lot of people gravitating to a faction as opposed to a crew.

[Allidor]

One thing I love about Malifaux is that it's cheap compared to other games. I know! This is the first thing people bring up about the game, but allow me to put it into perspective and show the implications of the price difference:

In Malifaux, it's about $50 to get completely up and running with the Wyrd specific things you need to play (Boxed set, Rules Manual, Fate Deck). Tape measure and soulstone counters you probably have lying around the house, if not, $1-$2 for a tape measure, use the change from that purchase to count your soulstones

After your initial crew purchase, you generally want to add in a few more models, so you're typically looking to spend another $20-$50. Now, at ~$100, you can have a master with close to the full range of models he/she can run, giving you plenty of adaptability and wiggle room for building crews at tournaments. After that, you just field what you need, when you need it.

[Uncle]

It is the exact same in every game. Show me a game where you don't need to have models to be "competitive." You only have to be "competitive" if you want to be competitive. If you only like gremlins, then you will play the hell out of some gremlins and have a blast doing it. Competitive is not everyone's goal. I mean what about the people that were only attracted to Tau? Still waiting on a codex...

I've yet to see a game, outside of Malifaux, that bases tournaments around owning far more models than you plan on using at a given time.

Let's look at Warmachine (yes, I've gotten more into the competitive scene there since this was last brought up). There are regularly 2-4 list tournaments, but there's an awful lot of overlap. I can bring 4 50-point lists that are almost completely identical, aside from the 'Caster, and yet will have quite a bit of tactical diversity (although, to be fair, I'd much rather have one of those 'Casters be Karchev).

In Malifaux, if I want to play Gremlins, I have to accept that Hamelin will be a difficult matchup. If I want to play Marcus, I have to accept that he's just plain bad.

Let's be honest: the game is almost balanced around the Masters. There are a few bad matchups, but that's bound to happen anyways. The real standouts are Marcus and the Gremlins on the weak end and perhaps a few Masters on the strong end, but that could be debated for ages. It wouldn't take much to shore things up from here.

[Hookers]

Perhaps the situation in Houston is strange--we're very much in the "casual and growing" stage here--but I just don't see a lot of people gravitating to a faction as opposed to a crew.

If you are in the casual and growing stage, then be casual and grow. It starts the same everywhere. Pick the master you like, have fun with him, use him and learn his intricacies. Everyone in your area will be on the same level. You can get good enough to beat your tougher match ups on paper with experience.

You might dislike the concept of buying more models than you immediately need to play with, so don't. Buy the models you like and play with them. It's still a very fun game. Eventually you will get bored of using the same models, lists, and master. You will naturally want to try someone else out.

If you are the type of player who doesn't want to buy another master in the faction you started with in order to have more choices in a tournament setting, then you should also be the type of person who doesn't care about winning tournaments. If you care about both, then pick your priority I guess, I don't know what to tell you.

I've yet to see a game, outside of Malifaux, that bases tournaments around owning far more models than you plan on using at a given time.

Most games however, require you to "scout out" the best models and min-max the ultimate list. So if you want to only own just enough models to play with, then you have to only own the most powerful and best models. You have one list for all time and a single weak link means you lose to the opponent with the better list.

Everyone I know has more models than they use in their most recent, all powerful list. Name your game system. It happens. Malifaux is giving you choices by letting you be able use more models and choose your crew after you know the strategy. Every model has a purpose and a strength and is useful in multiple strategies, but not all strategies. Any model you buy, you will use. Not every game, but you will get use out of them depending on your match up and strategy. You are still receiving value for what you purchase, and like I said, I think way more so than other systems.

When GW releases a new ruleset or armybook, they simply switch which models are powerful and make you buy the ones that you didn't own before in order to be competitive because they are now all of the sudden way better. Infinity's problem was "rambo" dominating everyone and the only purpose for having weaker models was to give rambo more orders. So they released human sphere giving weaker models a way to combat rambo. It was genius. But it also meant you would be more likely to buy models you didn't already have.

It is in wyrd's best interest to have a balanced game. I would not play it if weren't balanced, and I will stop playing it if it becomes unbalanced.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Hookers

[Ratty]

I really don't get this Marcus is bad argument. Marcus is below the power curve admittedly, but he's not auto-lose bad and he does some things very well.. I would dread playing Pandora against a Marcus player that knows what he's doing.

[Uncle]

If you are the type of player who doesn't want to buy another master in the faction you started with in order to have more choices in a tournament setting, then you should also be the type of person who doesn't care about winning tournaments. If you care about both, then pick your priority I guess, I don't know what to tell you.

That's pretty much me. I don't want to have to pick up a crew I don't care for in order to be "competitive," but luckily Colette's good enough, right now, to be able to do just about anything.

Most games however, require you to "scout out" the best models and min-max the ultimate list. So if you want to only own just enough models to play with, then you have to only own the most powerful and best models. You have one list for all time and a single weak link means you lose to the opponent with the better list.

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that. If I want to solely buy "the best" and use that, that's a valid option for purchasing, and, in fact, pretty much what I do in most games, within my limitations. Should I want to change the list, I can buy additional models, but it keeps my investment minimal compared to the enjoyment I get out of a game.

Everyone I know has more models than they use in their most recent, all powerful list. Name your game system. It happens. Malifaux is giving you choices by letting you be able use more models and choose your crew after you know the strategy. Every model has a purpose and a strength and is useful in multiple strategies, but not all strategies. Any model you buy, you will use. Not every game, but you will get use out of them depending on your match up and strategy. You are still receiving value for what you purchase, and like I said, I think way more so than other systems.

There are very few people I know who own several times more models for a given "force" than they regularly play. Having an extra unit or two, particularly once rules change and certain units become more useful, is typical. Owning 2-3 times the number of models you will likely use? Not so much.

really don't get this Marcus is bad argument. Marcus is below the power curve admittedly, but he's not auto-lose bad and he does some things very well.. I would dread playing Pandora against a Marcus player that knows what he's doing.

He's not auto-lose bad, but he's definitely amongst the worst Masters (I would argue the worst, as would many others). As such, a little boost would be in order.

[Necromorph]

It seems to me like many of the people posting when we're talking about "balance" and "being competitive" have different views of what each is. Some feel that something is balanced and competitive if you CAN win games with a master, even if they're not particularly good at it, but if you have fun, thats all that matters.

Others feel that the two mean that the game has to be balanced so flawlessly that everyone is equal.

Neither view is really correct. No, the game cannot be perfectly balanced. Hell, MMO's have trouble balancing 5-10 classes, let alone 20. However, it would be nice if weak masters were more readily addressed through either errata or adding models that help them actually overcome abysmal matchups is some way to give them a boost.

For those who say, "Master x is fine, i've seen him win a game once, don't take it so seriously," doesn't work that way. You can't tell someone how to feel about something, and if you're making a GAME, there are some people that will take it competitively/too seriously (sports are games too, you gonna tell someone who just lost a national championship to "not take it so seriously"). I, for one, am a competitive minded player. I'm not win at all costs, but I don't like to lose, and even if I'm playing for fun I'll still be a little annoyed when I lose...unless ofc I'm drunk, but w/e. That's just how I am, from hockey to video games to ttg's, I always feel some need to be competitive, and I know I'm not alone there. If you make a game that promotes league and tournament play, and there are imbalances, then you can bet it will attract a competitive following, and that they sure as hell will let you know about those imbalances in the game.

I don't think that the game can be balanced properly, due to it's basic design and the fact that 20 masters and all unique minions, but telling folks that got suckered into playing underpowered masters to "get over it" and "stop taking it seriously, it's a game" is NOT the answer to the issue.

[Borthcollective]

I really don't get this Marcus is bad argument. Marcus is below the power curve admittedly, but he's not auto-lose bad and he does some things very well.. I would dread playing Pandora against a Marcus player that knows what he's doing.

Marcus just isn't a forgiving master to play. There are no easy parlor tricks with him.

[Dolomyte]

If someone just wants to pick up one master and be done with it, thats a choice they are making. If that choice lends to them getting destroyed by other players if they get a bad matchup or bad strategy. Too bad.

Every game system out there REQUIRES you to make an investment in models to be competetive at high end tournaments. in games workshop you need to build your specific army a certain way, and in some cases you need to avoid armies alltogether. (I think BoC use to suck, not sure if the new codex changed them) In warmachine tournaments you bring two lists. yes, both lists might be near identical, but thats because the game ends on a caster kill. Playing as deneghra i never cared about scenario. I would just kill the opposing caster and count my victory.

For malifaux? you probably need 20 to 24 models (I do amazingly well with arcanists, Rasputinas Box, Colletes Box, Duet, SnowStorm, Molemen, Whorecats, EoP, Doves, Convict, and a silent one or 2)

If you dont feel like making an investment like that. feel free not to. However. Don't bash the game and say its not balanced and does not work well in a competetive environment, because it works perfectly well in a competetive environment, your just trying to win with a handicap. BOOK 1 of the game says pick the strategy THEN build the crew. the official tournaments say pick the strategy THEN build the crew.

[Ratty]

TBH with GW you need to swap armies and start from scratch almost every year if you want to be competitive as the Meta swings that fast. One year you might have to play Demons of Chaos or an army designed to beat DoC, next year it may be Space Wolves. At least with Malifaux the balance doesn't shift horribly every release. Hamelin might be good, but a lot of the original Masters have a fairly good chance of beating him if you you know what your doing, and if you have 2 Masters you can definitely field something that can win.

And when it comes down to it a game of Malifaux takes as long as a game of 40k and is at least as fun (I would argue much more fun). From a money to enjoyment ratio stand point. 20 or so models gets me 2 crews. for GW that is 1 or 2 squads, I'll need 10 times that to play in a tournament. If your in it for the painting side of things you easily end up with enough models to play 2 or 3 very different crews if you paint everything you like in a faction. I'm not the biggest fan of the McMourning sculpt.. but after I had painted all the stuff I like for Kirai and Seamus, it was only a couple of models to play McMourning (and the little guy did grow on me a bit).

Edited July 26, 2011 by Ratty

[Dolomyte]

TBH with GW you need to swap armies and start from scratch almost every year if you want to be competitive as the Meta swings that fast. One year you might have to play Demons of Chaos or an army designed to beat DoC, next year it may be Space Wolves. At least with Malifaux the balance doesn't shift horribly every release. Hamelin might be good, but a lot of the original Masters have a fairly good chance of beating him if you you know what your doing, and if you have 2 Masters you can definitely field something that can win.

well yeah, newest codex wins. though DoC lasted a good long time.

[Ciaran]

The other option is for the game to be balanced at the Master level and retain the distinction between crews. Truth be told, they're already pretty darned close to it, and it would just take dealing with a few outliers, like Marcus and Gremlins vs. Hamelin, to make it viable. But, of course, that doesn't sell as many models, does it?

So, what you admit is "a few outliers" is what you're basing your opinion on? If everyone is balanced at the Mater level except for those Masters I don't see what the complaint is. That would make just about any Master/Strategy combination viable in the game, including in tournament settings.

In our group people tend to start with one Master, they then typically move into a Faction, and love it. As you said, it might be the situation in Houston. Like an earlier poster pointed out, it's likely because it's a "casual and growing" group, which is no bad thing. It's a great place to be.

If balance is a serious concern throughout the local community then that group should organize events that mitigate those perceived weaknesses. If the vast majority of the community globally doesn't see it, then the players that see that might well be the outliers, and should organize accordingly.

What's funny is that a lot of the players that LOVE Malifaux around here won't touch WM/H, in part because of what we see as disgusting balance issues, and an incredibly uninteresting win condition. It certainly is a good thing that there are so many different games out there, for so many different preferred styles.

We might well be "arguing" issues entirely based on perceptions and opinions, and down that path awaits madness....and locked threads

[Chanst]

Just wanted to put in another point of reference to make the point that this industry attracts all sorts of individuals.

I am an avid Warmahordes player. Been playing for years and years. We have a group of about 8 or so steady players in my area that have been playing about the same amount of time. We are all what you would consider casual players that like to win. Though we have competative natures, none of us play the game in a tournament setting. I played in Warmahordes tourneys for a time before MKII came out, but I got out of the scene BECAUSE it was mostly the same lists you would see all the time. When I brought Menoth to the table, if I didn't play one of maybe 3 casters, I would place poorly (I was never a very good tourney player anyway). On a side note, when I built my 2 tourney lists, I built pretty different ones because even in this game there were bad matchups. I would say I brought 60-70 models to GenCon with me.

So our group is casual. I probably own the least amount of models of all the players in the group. That being said, I have at least 200 points in Skorne, probably closer to 250 in Menoth, and that amount grows slowly over time. And I am the low man on the totem pole. We never play games over 50 points, never play 2 caster games. I buy more models in these games BECAUSE I play casually and like to have a variety to choose from, and I would say most of my group is the same.

I stopped playing Warmahordes when I got into Malifaux, partially because I wanted a change of pace from the 30-50 models games I was playing, and partially because Malifaux looked like a good fun game. I got in at GenCon last year, bought 2 crews from different factions. I understood that if I wanted to play competitively--because of the way the rules were written about crew creation--that I would probably have to find a faction and settle down to buying most of what that faction has to offer. I settled on Ressers (which was neither of my 1st two crews I bought) for many reasons. I now own 3 masters for Ressers, not including Kirai. I will be playing in a tourney at GenCon, and I feel that I can be competative with my selection (regardless of my skill level) with about 35-40 models.

I play Warmahordes again now. I love both games for different reasons. I don't compare the two because I don't feel the need to try and figure out which one is better than the other.

I guess this whole post can be summed up by saying 'Different strokes for different folks'. If you like casual, stick with it. It won't be perfect, but nothing ever is. If you like the competative scene now, stick with that too. It's not perfect either, but that's ok too.