Is this game well balanced?

[Q'iq'el]

So why must there be a tournament format again? If what you say is true, Then by logic, Mali does not lend itself well to tournament play, which is all about a race to the top, winining games by killing enemy models.

Uh? The tournaments are there because people want them? What other reason do you need?

Seriously: I'm not sure how you can reach such conclusions. I never said the game isn't competitive enough or unfit for tournaments. That the game is not designed for an all out slugfest doesn't make it any less competitive. On the contrary, the ability to gain advantage through skillful choice of masters and minions is exactly what motivates the competitive player. Just like new idea for training may give a motivation for long-distance runner or a ski jumper. Are you trying to say, that there's no point in making football tournaments, since it's not a slugfest?

Any sort of game fits tournament format and as long as you use Strategies and Schemes, and allow people to freely change masters and minions within their faction (and out of faction where the special rules allow), there's nothing making Malifaux unfit for tournament. It's just the pitched battle tournaments in the old Warhammer style the game is not made for and they shouldn't be held.

Race to the top can be about anything - from drinking tears to smashing plushies. In Malifaux it is not about killing, but about completing objectives. The fact you can win after getting tabled is all the proof you need, really. That doesn't mean there's no race to the top factor. Not at all.

Clearly, by your logic, it lends itslf better to some other format that is not about pitting 1 player vs another, master on master, crew on crew, every round.

Of course not. The game is a competition and any competition can be held in tournament format 1v1. What the game is not is a traditional wargame. That's why the premise that the model vs. model balance is the only way to make it work in tournaments is false. Gaining Grounds may not be perfect, but it's basically all that is needed for solid tournaments. All we need now is to play it a bit and fix the issues that may become obvious in practice.

That you cannot use the same standard as for Starcraft or Warhammer FB, doesn't make it any less fit for tournaments. You simply have to use different standards.

Malifaux is balanced, in right conditions, faction vs. faction, not because anybody said so, but because it is obvious from the start that every faction has access to all types of tools needed to complete objectives. Because completing objectives wins the games, that is all you really need. The only problem is that you as a player have to strive to get access to these tools - there's both money and painting time involved. Because we don't have limitless time, we have to choose very well if we want to be competitive players. There's nothing wrong with that.

And I agree 100% with those who say it's not the balance that is needed, it's the playability. There already is parity between Malifaux factions - anybody can get tough melee elite, anybody can get some sort of ranged crew, anybody has access to movement tricks and map-control minions. They work differently, but you can get them. You don't need anything more than such parity to run a good and fair tournaments in the Gaining Ground format.

And as far as playability goes, this is a truly addictive and immersive game, with solid mechanics. They've been tested in practice in over two years and the quality has hugely improved with the appearance of Rules Manual. I don't think there's any doubt that the playability is there.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[cerealkiller195]

@Buhalin- If you think warmachine is a skirmish game then you must of never gotten past the starter pack... HordeMachine is more of a platoon game (secrets of the third reich and in an abstraction of 40k i guess). When i say skirmish it means 10-12 models unless you are running some crazy lists.

You said two masters is roughly $160? You can usually buy into other skirmish games (dark age, pulp city, infinity, hell dorado, ae WWII, etc) twice over or start multiple skirmish games for that price. Sure it is less of a blow than GW or HordeMachine...but still a cost if you have other expenses to take care of.

Like i said i love playing malifaux dont get me wrong but to blindly defend it (not saying your in particular) just seems wrong. After years of playing skirmish games I think i'm allowed to be discerning when it comes to what i think is good or not and allowed to voice that opinion. After all things will only get better if wyrd (like always) listens to customer input don't you think?

[Uncle]

There's one more thing the people toeing the "Faction Balanced = Balanced!" line seem to be forgetting:

When we start looking at Malifaux, we're not looking at a "faction." We're looking at models we like the look of. I didn't start playing until the Showgirls were released because there wasn't a crew out there that really hooked me. I was considering the game, but was debating between Lady Justice, Perdita, and Leveticus, with the possibility of the Gremlins.

As far as the rest of the Arcanists, well, I'm not nearly as drawn to them as I am Collette's crew. Ramos looks kind of neat, Rasputina is Ice Queen Cheesecake, and Marcus is all kinds of a hot mess (even moreso now with the Avatar). While Ramos would be a "thematic" second Master, Rasputina sets the Showgirls off better.

And let's not even get into the background here. The game is about Faction vs. Faction, sure. But outside of the Guild, since when have the Factions been that cooperative, really? The Arcanists are basically just a loose collection of random magic-using types. The Neverborn include models that don't even acknowledge Malifaux as real. The Ressers, well, Nicodem and Kirai are kind of working together. No real unity, though.

And then we get to the Outcasts. What organization do they have to send Som'er's gremlins out in some missions and then send the Freikorps for the next encounter? Just how often do the Vickies and Ophelia get together for strategic meetings? Does Leveticus hang out with Hamelin and get a burger or something?

The factions are really just thematic in the majority of the cases. If you are playing Marcus and Rasputina (the "wild" Arcanists), you have a very different group than Collette and Ramos (the "civilized" ones).

[Q'iq'el]

There's one more thing the people toeing the "Faction Balanced = Balanced!" line seem to be forgetting:

When we start looking at Malifaux, we're not looking at a "faction." We're looking at models we like the look of. I didn't start playing until the Showgirls were released because there wasn't a crew out there that really hooked me. I was considering the game, but was debating between Lady Justice, Perdita, and Leveticus, with the possibility of the Gremlins.

But that is a matter of tastes, thing subjective and something you can never truly resolve.

Some people buy the book, study rules and then pick up the models for their efficiency and abilities, some pick up the crews they like and only after that learn the game.

There's virtually no player who didn't switch his Warhammer army once or twice or didn't try another faction in other miniature games - you pick up what you think you'd like based on very general information, then you learn the game and playstyles and only after that you can make informed choices.

And let's not even get into the background here. The game is about Faction vs. Faction, sure. But outside of the Guild, since when have the Factions been that cooperative, really? The Arcanists are basically just a loose collection of random magic-using types. The Neverborn include models that don't even acknowledge Malifaux as real. The Ressers, well, Nicodem and Kirai are kind of working together. No real unity, though.

I think you're bending it a bit. Arcanists are clearly an organized conspiracy. There are multiple masters involved in helping Rasputina in Book 1 and it cannot be more obvious Colette is a smuggler working for Ramos in Book 2.

Book 2 Neverborn may be desorganized, as it is mostly about LCB who is sort of "accidental" master as far as fluff goes, but Book 1 Neverborn activity, from the beginning to the end, was a result of a plot conceived and closely followed by all 3 Book 1 masters.

And then we get to the Outcasts. What organization do they have to send Som'er's gremlins out in some missions and then send the Freikorps for the next encounter? Just how often do the Vickies and Ophelia get together for strategic meetings? Does Leveticus hang out with Hamelin and get a burger or something?

If you use an RTS analogy, Outcast are your "Random" faction. They are not working together, because their theme is being mercenary, being used by other factions, working for money, glory, power or out of fear. You have to buy more, you have to paint more, you have to learn completely different play-styles with little to no synergy between crews, but at that cost you get very clear advantage - your opponent cannot prepare against your crew the way he'd be able to prepare when facing any other faction.

Since it is a faction for people who want to enjoy Malifaux as outsiders to the ongoing conflict, there's really not much problem with the fact that their masters are all lone wolves with their own packs. It actually fits the fluff.

[Buhallin]

@Buhalin- If you think warmachine is a skirmish game then you must of never gotten past the starter pack... HordeMachine is more of a platoon game (secrets of the third reich and in an abstraction of 40k i guess). When i say skirmish it means 10-12 models unless you are running some crazy lists.

Different definitions, then. I always considered Warmachine as skirmish.

You said two masters is roughly $160? You can usually buy into other skirmish games (dark age, pulp city, infinity, hell dorado, ae WWII, etc) twice over or start multiple skirmish games for that price. Sure it is less of a blow than GW or HordeMachine...but still a cost if you have other expenses to take care of.

That's a worst-case situation for two masters and a large selection of support models. If money is that tight for you, then there are other options. There are numerous crews that make passable all-comers lists, or two different masters who can leverage a lot of overlap in models but still bring different things to the table. Ramos/Rasputina fit that, as do Seamus/McMourning, Seamus/Kirai, Viks/Von Schill. Plenty of options to find overlap and save purchase cost.

In the end, what is acceptable cost will come down largely to how much you need cost to support your position Personally, I think that being able to be fully invested in a minis game for around $150 is a pretty solid deal. Are there cheaper games out there? Certainly, and if you can't afford to play Malifaux then you really shouldn't play Malifaux, or you should find ways to play Malifaux more cheaply (which do exist).

There's one more thing the people toeing the "Faction Balanced = Balanced!" line seem to be forgetting:

When we start looking at Malifaux, we're not looking at a "faction." We're looking at models we like the look of. I didn't start playing until the Showgirls were released because there wasn't a crew out there that really hooked me. I was considering the game, but was debating between Lady Justice, Perdita, and Leveticus, with the possibility of the Gremlins.

As far as the rest of the Arcanists, well, I'm not nearly as drawn to them as I am Collette's crew. Ramos looks kind of neat, Rasputina is Ice Queen Cheesecake, and Marcus is all kinds of a hot mess (even moreso now with the Avatar). While Ramos would be a "thematic" second Master, Rasputina sets the Showgirls off better.

No, nobody's forgotten this.

But it goes back to the very first point I made. This is NOT a matter of the game not being balanced - it's a matter of you not liking how the game is balanced. That's not the same thing.

[Fenrir]

Is any game really balanced? Excepting the end of 7th edition WFB, which was an example to all.

[Math Mathonwy]

Gotta agree with Math on this one here.

Brofist!

I plan on picking up Arcanists next. I will be using exclusively Marcus and Colette. I see no problems with this. I will let you know how I do, but I anticipate being every bit as competitive as with my other two factions.

Colette is the complementing Arcanist - she is their answer to the situations where the other Masters might struggle. OTOH there are very few situations where I would take Marcus instead of Colette. Finally, I believe that you're an above average player so you will most likely do well no matter the crews you choose

[Uncle]

Different definitions, then. I always considered Warmachine as skirmish.

I would only consider Warmahordes as skirmish when compared for 40k. Calling WM and Malifaux the same "type" of game is a bit disingenuous, really: we're talking a game where you'll be running multiple units of ten men vs. a game where your force will consist of, typically, under ten men.

Malifaux is "skirmish" like Necromunda or Mordheim is "skirmish." Warmachine is a level about that, but under 40k in terms of models on the table.

But it goes back to the very first point I made. This is NOT a matter of the game not being balanced - it's a matter of you not liking how the game is balanced. That's not the same thing.

Again, I think that Malifaux is "almost" balanced based on Master. I think there's just a few things that need to be fixed to make that a reality, and we'll see what book 3 brings.

[paradox]

Malifaux is balanced' date=' in right conditions, faction vs. faction.[/quote']

So if I only own 1 master, and I decide to play in a tourney, what do I do when I get the scenarios I can't compete in and/or bad matches

Your claim requires I own at least 3 of 4 masters, currently availible (maybe more in the future) to stay competative.

In other words, to play a tourney, I cant just bring 1 list I like, I have to bring my whole faction. Because in Tourney play, you inevitably have topick 1 master and crew to face another.

Is it? if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Magno]

@Q'iq'el,

Again, folks here are arguing how unique and different Malifaux is, both in how it handles balance and competition, so why are we held to the same old same old competitive formats?

"Because, thats what people want."

Right, and if Henry Ford listened to his customers he would have made horse carriages.

Often times people want what they know. All Paradox is getting at is why not challenge the whole gaming industry with a competitive format that they can't follow. So when customers "want that" the only place they can get it is Malifaux.

Again, we've been challenged here by the proponents if balance to approach the game differently than others games. Fine, challenge accepted..... years ago. I'm asking you guys to consider whether this whole "faction balance" thing is really worth the effort? It's patching up the game to conform to industry norms, when from the outset, it could have pursued something different and this whole discussion is likely moot and we could be debating something new, different, and well ,... Wyrd.

[edonil]

@Q'iq'el,

Again, folks here are arguing how unique and different Malifaux is, both in how it handles balance and competition, so why are we held to the same old same old competitive formats?

"Because, thats what people want."

Right, and if Henry Ford listened to his customers he would have made horse carriages.

Often times people want what they know. All Paradox is getting at is why not challenge the whole gaming industry with a competitive format that they can't follow. So when customers "want that" the only place they can get it is Malifaux.

Again, we've been challenged here by the proponents if balance to approach the game differently than others games. Fine, challenge accepted..... years ago. I'm asking you guys to consider whether this whole "faction balance" thing is really worth the effort? It's patching up the game to conform to industry norms, when from the outset, it could have pursued something different and this whole discussion is likely moot and we could be debating something new, different, and well ,... Wyrd.

...just kinda curious about what you think would be another way to do things, then? Personally, I don't see an issue with the Faction balance, but then I'm coming from Warmachine and 40k where any true claims to balance are laughable. Not saying that skill is negated but list, but Malifaux is easily the best balanced game that I've played. But, even when I see people talking about Infinity and how that's balanced, I haven't seen anything drastically new. Not intending to offend, but it's very easy to throw down a challenge saying 'Come up with something new!' and yet it's very much an 'Easier said than done." So, what's your new and innovative idea that would be easily accomplished, easy to understand, and able to work both competitively with time restrictions and casually with people just having fun?

PS- I know this post might come off a bit hypocritical since I basically did the same thing, but I'm guessing that you really do have some serious ideas as to this, and I'm curious what those are.

[nilus]

I can debate that Wyrd is doing something different with competitive play. The whole idea of drafting a crew each round is pretty unique.

But that being said the reason why Malifaux is still using a traditional tournament structure is pretty simple. It's what people expect and it makes figuring out winners easier.

I saw on another thread that Mango suggestion a 4 way story based scenario for a con event. Which sounds great on paper but when I only have one Nightmare Teddy to give to the winner I can't judge who told the best story with models.

I am all for crafting story based events for cons(I have several planned for Adepticon next year) but standard tournaments draw a lot more people.

[Calmdown]

Malifaux is a lot more balanced when you can pick your crew and minions as per the rules in the rulebook.

Gaining Ground removed that and forced the current tiered state of masters; to be competitive, a master has to be able to take on a large multitude of scenarios on very variable terrain setups, and only a few can do that. Why GG doesn't prescribe the use of book rules I don't know. The only argument I've heard is that "not everyone has a full faction so it'd be unfair" but, to be honest, if you want to play in a tournament then you should be prepared to get the models you need to do so.

A middle ground to this is allowing people to take 2 masters with 55ss lists each. At least that would open up a whole lot more masters to competitive play.

[Q'iq'el]

So if I only own 1 master, and I decide to play in a tourney, what do I do when I get the scenarios I can't compete in and/or bad matches

And that is different to other games how? Don't Warmahorde tournaments allow people to bring 2 warcasters and switch? Does Warhammer Army/Batalion Box gives you a tournament size army?

Competitive play is not one, but several steps beyond starter box and casual gaming. If you don't care and go to tournament to improve own skills, take your one master and don't care about your chances for the 1st place. An owner of a fluffy WHFB army or inspired-by-novel 40K army isn't going to win tournaments either. Does that mean he can't have fun while playing?

Either way, tournament competition implies heavier investment into the hobby - in terms of money, in terms of time spent on practice games and in terms of time spent on painting more minis. There's nothing wrong with this, especially because this +α you need to add to your starter box costs you considerably less than in other popular systems.

Your claim requires I own at least 3 of 4 masters, currently availible (maybe more in the future) to stay competative.

In other words, to play a tourney, I cant just bring 1 list I like, I have to bring my whole faction. Because in Tourney play, you inevitably have topick 1 master and crew to face another.

Well, first I think 2 masters are more than enough in most cases. My personal thinking is that you need one fighty and one support/survivable master. If it so happens that one is melee and the other ranged on the top of that, they are even more complimentary. I suppose there are cases where owning 3 would be preferential, but I'm not sure about that myself.

Secondly, Wyrd makes an effort to make models with new abilities which do not break the game for the players not owning them. You can still bring Book 1 army and win right now, even if Book 2 makes crews much more fun. In the end, you'll always want to add new models to your list because of new synergies which allow you to surprise your opponent and grab the advantage. Again, that's how competitive gaming has always worked, as far as I remember.

You also need a solid range of minions, from small and fast, to big and tanky, through utility casters and fighters of different sorts, to be able to adapt your crew for every Encounter and Strategy. There are some pivotal models you want to hire every time you face certain strategies. In case of some crews gathering enough minions costs you far more than that second starter box, so the cost of taking 2 Masters isn't even the major obstacle to overcome (actually getting 2nd starter box often gives you some needed alternate minions for the cheap).

And yes, in recommended tournament format you are supposed to pick your faction for the duration of the tournament and then decide on the master before each game, after flipping for your Strategy. That means you indeed need to bring at least 2 masters and enough minions to build several different lists (obviously some minions may overlap).

What I don't get is where's surprise in that. I started Malifaux around February or March 2010, when the game was still very new, and I already understood from the interviews and these forums, without seeing Book1, that this is a game where you need several crews and several masters to compete. I didn't even conduct any serious research (except one post on the forums asking for advice on the "next step" for my chosen starting boxes) and I got that all-right.

Are people being actively misinformed by their LGS buddies about the way this game scales from introductory level to competitive level? Or is it some sort of word-of-mouth thing people take for gospel and take a plunge without thinking about their next step? Because it really isn't a secret - you see the Encounter system and it's obvious from the very moment, as many people have pointed out in this thread, that this is a faction based game, not an army based one.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[mythicFOX]

Gaining Ground removed that and forced the current tiered state of masters; to be competitive, a master has to be able to take on a large multitude of scenarios on very variable terrain setups, and only a few can do that. Why GG doesn't prescribe the use of book rules I don't know.

There is no fixed master format in GG? Unless I'm misunderstanding your post?

A middle ground to this is allowing people to take 2 masters with 55ss lists each. At least that would open up a whole lot more masters to competitive play.

That actually makes matters worse. Trust me I've played in two tournaments of this type. By restricting to pool players are forced to take masters who work best with a very small pool of models (Eg Dreamer, Colette etc). Pools make some masters much more competitive than others.

Edited August 3, 2011 by mythicFOX

[Q'iq'el]

There is no fixed master format in GG? Unless I'm misunderstanding your post?

Nope.

There are 4 formats in GG:

Open faction - you play any faction and any master you want each game.

Single Faction - you pick up your faction, masters are free choice within that faction.

Limited Faction Pool (Single Faction's variant) - you choose your faction and you bring minions pool which is limited to XX Soulstones. At the beginning of each game you hire up your crew as normal, but from that pool only. Masters are free, but their totems must fit in the pool (so if you bring several masters, you need to include all their totems).

Fixed Crews (works both for open and single faction) - you pre-register several crews (details to be determined by organizer) and each of these crews *MUST* have different leader. Also this format doesn't allow you to use the same list twice, unless you've already used up all your lists.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

@Q'iq'el,

Again, folks here are arguing how unique and different Malifaux is, both in how it handles balance and competition, so why are we held to the same old same old competitive formats?

Is it the same old competitive format, though? The 4 formats proposed by the Gaining Grounds are perhaps not all that far from your regular tournament play, but they all are different enough to exploit Malifaux' unique take on crew choice flexibility.

Considering you play for objectives, I'd argue you could bring Hippy Lady J in her Grateful Dead t-shirt and the infamous dreaded marshalls, refuse to do any violence and still win a Strategy or two. Isn't that different enough?

Sure 2v2, 4v4, FFA and all sorts of formats that would allow for campaing-like scenarios, with scores based on each crew's progress, are all possible. The onus is on the community to come up with a format that works, when it comes to experiments like that. I don't think these are anything new though - they've been and are being done by some Warhammer tournaments as far as I know and I bet other gaming systems do story based competitions from time to time too.

[nilus]

It should also be noted that Gaining Grounds is a work in progress and is subject to change. As Wyrd expands I am sure we will see more ways of running organized events beyond standard tournaments.

Standard tournies are easiest to put official rules on so its why we got them first. I am assuming next we will see more story based encounters and league rules.

[Uncle]

Considering you play for objectives' date=' I'd argue you could bring Hippy Lady J in her Grateful Dead t-shirt and the infamous dreaded marshalls, refuse to do any violence and still win a Strategy or two. Isn't that different enough?[/quote']

Kind of like with Warmachine and objectives? Technically, you can win a tournament without ever killing an enemy model. In practice, that falls flat.

Kind of like with Malifaux.

[Q'iq'el]

Kind of like with Warmachine and objectives? Technically, you can win a tournament without ever killing an enemy model. In practice, that falls flat.

Kind of like with Malifaux.

Except that in Malifaux it doesn't fail flat at all. I've won several games without killing or losing a single model.

Mostly treasure hunts - if you have a crew that can produce or alter terrain (Illusionary forest, Ice Pillars, Waldgeist) or a crew which can slow/paralyze the opponent, and the opponent makes some positioning mistakes, you can easily grab the objective and keep running till the game ends.

May not be fun for everyone around, but I did it once or twice as an experiment and it does work quite well.

[Calmdown]

There is no fixed master format in GG? Unless I'm misunderstanding your post?

There is a fixed master format in GG, and it's the one everyone is using (at least in the UK) right now. And it's also the worst one, for the reasons I mentioned above.

That actually makes matters worse. Trust me I've played in two tournaments of this type. By restricting to pool players are forced to take masters who work best with a very small pool of models (Eg Dreamer, Colette etc). Pools make some masters much more competitive than others.

55ss lists for each of your two masters (110ss total). There's no master in the game that can't make viable lists with 55ss.

Though of course, as I said in the post you're replying to, I agree with you. The whole faction should be available as per the rulebook. But this is still better than single master, single list.

It should also be noted that Gaining Grounds is a work in progress and is subject to change. As Wyrd expands I am sure we will see more ways of running organized events beyond standard tournaments.

Standard tournies are easiest to put official rules on so its why we got them first. I am assuming next we will see more story based encounters and league rules.

Games companies in many arenas have been using this excuse, or had this excuse made for them by fans, for years.

Simply put, there's no excuse for releasing a bad ruleset (and GG is a bad ruleset) as a professional gaming company. Hire someone who knows how to write competitive rules, or take advice from someone who can, and get it at least mostly right first time. There's really no excuse for failure here.

Except that in Malifaux it doesn't fail flat at all. I've won several games without killing or losing a single model.

You may have done so, but it's easily possible to build crews and schemes that basically ignore strategies.

Pretty much every game I play with Kirai, I main/cripple/table my opponent, and then take objectives later. There are no crews in the game that can completely avoid combat all game. The same can be done with Dreamer, Collette, and plenty of other masters using highly mobile minions.

Not that you can't try to do what you suggest - but against some crews, its not possible. So it does kind of fall flat when you call the game 'scenario oriented' when most of the good crews essentially win by (and are arguably the best because they are capable of) ignoring objectives, and/or taking schemes that they do incidentally whilst killing your dudes.

[Buhallin]

There is a fixed master format in GG, and it's the one everyone is using (at least in the UK) right now. And it's also the worst one, for the reasons I mentioned above.

...

Simply put, there's no excuse for releasing a bad ruleset (and GG is a bad ruleset) as a professional gaming company.

Your first statement contradicts your second.

Gaining Ground presents multiple options for tourney structure, and allows the organizer to choose one. That's Wyrd trying to be flexible, and allow us as organizers to choose the one that fits our area. My next tournament will be fixed crew, because that fits our play area - I think faction choice is better, but Malifaux is still coming together in our area and I want to accommodate people who are still new and don't have as many models.

I'm really not sure how you can consider allowing local TOs to work within the rules to suit their local playbase a bad ruleset. If your local TOs are stuck in the same mindset as some here seem to be, that's not Wyrd's fault.

[nilus]

There is a fixed master format in GG, and it's the one everyone is using (at least in the UK) right now. And it's also the worst one, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Well that might be an issue in the UK but in the states Fixed faction open is the standard play style.

And there is no fixed master in Gaining grounds. From the doc that is downloadable to the right of this forum there are only 4 ways of doing it

Open Faction, Single Faction, Limited Faction Pool or fixed crew.

Perhaps you should read the gaining grounds doc fully before saying its poorly written.

[Calmdown]

Your first statement contradicts your second.

Gaining Ground presents multiple options for tourney structure, and allows the organizer to choose one. That's Wyrd trying to be flexible, and allow us as organizers to choose the one that fits our area. My next tournament will be fixed crew, because that fits our play area - I think faction choice is better, but Malifaux is still coming together in our area and I want to accommodate people who are still new and don't have as many models.

I'm really not sure how you can consider allowing local TOs to work within the rules to suit their local playbase a bad ruleset. If your local TOs are stuck in the same mindset as some here seem to be, that's not Wyrd's fault.

You're right, it would be less of an issue if TOs would run the open ruleset.

The problem is, they aren't running the open ruleset. THey're running the limited ruleset because maybe they feel they have to in order to accomodate players with smaller forces; and players with smaller forces, in turn, dont feel the need to expand because they can play in tournaments with what they have. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In any case, giving people a choice is in itself a failure. Prescribe the rules, set them the same for everyone, and make them play. Don't let other people make decisions that they can (and will) make wrong. And don't force TOs to have liability for choosing the format, because they can be influenced by the will of players (or what they feel is the way of players), rather than running what they should be running.

[Uncle]

Except that in Malifaux it doesn't fail flat at all. I've won several games without killing or losing a single model.

Mostly treasure hunts - if you have a crew that can produce or alter terrain (Illusionary forest, Ice Pillars, Waldgeist) or a crew which can slow/paralyze the opponent, and the opponent makes some positioning mistakes, you can easily grab the objective and keep running till the game ends.

Deneghra can do the same thing, more or less, and win without even really giving her opponent a turn in some scenarios. Doesn't mean it happens all the time or is even really all that viable of an argument. It's possible, but unlikely.

Remember, in every situation, dead models cannot mess you up. Killing your opponent is a valid strategy in every scenario you can name, and killing them before they can accomplish their goals just works even better.

You can win without killing a model. You can even win having all of your models killed off. But against a capable opponent, neither of those is very likely.