The Dreaded FILTH list

[paradox]

Would you make your list set up table, see their master and auto-concede?

If I were playing in a tourney and I saw Hamelin hit the table, yes. However, in a tourney you often have advanced out-of-game knowledge about who is running what, even if lists are not pre-set.

Even at a tourney, where you go to compete, I would rather take a loss and sit a game out (or play a for-fun game vs my opponent with a different master) than play that boring load of crap that is Hamelin. It has a bit to do with the power-levels and a whole lot to do with the way it plays. It's just not fun. Period.

Even a tourney has a basic level of fun required. This is a hobby in my free time. I feel not reason to do something I know I will not enjoy.

[Q'iq'el]

Hes actually made a few posts discussing why he does not like the filth list, he just like to play the contrarion all the time. its really tiresome.

It's not about whether I like Filth or not, or whether I am contrarian or not. I also don't care whether other likes or dislike FILTH list and give them full right to do so.

Two points:

- Why in this thread?

- Why do you (and others) feel it is OK to flaunt not-having-fun in face of people who may have fun with it, but it isn't ok to flaunt not-liking-posts-about-not-having-fun in your face? Double standards?

I'm merely expressing my dislike for such posts, because they turn perfectly rational discussion into emotional outbursts.

[Q'iq'el]

Your comments make me wonder if locally we're playing with enough terrain as I find that I have to expose my models to being lured before I can even get close to try and hurt nekima or lilitu which from my tests would lead to them dying horribly once they get chain pulled from quite some distance away. I've only tested the chain lure list out to see how it works having read about it, so my experience is not 'in game' so I realise that I'm not best placed to comment on how it actually runs once you're in the thick of it.

I played with Warhammer FB terrain for over a year and a half. I have a lot of it and I have some custom made pieces. I always used multiple forests, because I felt other types of terrain do not provide much of hiding space and don't allow for all the movement effects to shine (within the forest you can achieve a lot by coming within 3" of the edge and then moving back deeper in.

After I started playing in Terraclips I understood that terrain was all wrong. Completely. It's not the matter of amount, it's matter of type and quality. Warhammer terrain doesn't contain enclosed areas, there are no gates, no narrow bridges, no walled streets. Everything is made for huge units rolling through the wide open spaces. Almost all wargamming terrain is like that.

The few very good quality tables made from Hirst-Arts products, that we saw on these forums thorough the years, are how Malifaux terrain should look like. Tall buildings, Ht2~Ht3 walls, areas you cannot leave or enter unless you interact with terrain, areas you have to climb or fly to get in, enclosed and roofed spaces where even flying monsters have to spend turn or two to get in or out... etc.

Terraclips bring that for a price (not that high, comparatively), but I feel a lot can be done with plaster and silicon casting forms if someone prefers to build his tables - we had seen some great examples of it.

[paradox]

It's one thing to say that you find it fun to aplay against when others do not.

It is another thing to say that it's annoying to not agree with you.

Who is doing the flaunting here?

This thread is about the FILTH list in general. The topic can touch beatability/power levels. It can also touch fun/enjoyability. You can have arguments about the former. It's pretty hard to argue the latter. It more comes down to a poster saying how they stand on the issue, and others disagreeing. Not much further to go from there on the latter point.

If you think FILTH is fun to playa against, that's fine. If you think it's annoying that other people post they do not find it fun, that's also fine. If you make a post telling a poster that they are annoying for thinking so, that is rude and not OK. You are not entitled to attempt to adjust a pure opinion of another person in polite conversation. It is better to agree to disagree and let the issue pass.

Sometimes it can be hard to separate the issues, but if a player says "FILTH is beatable but not fun to play against" then take on the issue of beatability or powerlevels, and how that may improve the fun factor. Do not attack the opinion of fun itself. That is pointless and rude.

[Q'iq'el]

This is the question for me:

Defenders and employers of things like Alp Bombs, Filth Lists, Hamelin infinite combos et all: Why should I spend any effort giving you a platform to deny me a game of Malifaux? I am going schedule time, build a board, make the trip, read up on the rules to make sure I'm not taking forever... these aren't things I'm doing because I want to watch the game end turn one. If you want to employ these ultra effective combos, check with me ahead of time. It's going to factor into my decision of whether or not I'm going to take the time.

The reverse of this question is:

Why should your subjective vision of a game of Malifaux deny them a game of Malifaux with the legal (and still fluffy) crew they have bought, painted (to high standard perhaps), not to mention the time they've spend going through the rules to come up with the combo (giving the benefit of the doubt, that it isn't just an internet list).

And the answer is that this is a game for two and you give some to get some. If they have a hard list they want to try out very bad, propose two games to them - the first or second with a softer list you may enjoy. Or power up your own list a little so it doesn't end in the turn 1.

Or go further and make soft list gaming days and hard list gaming days in your club, if you think situation really is that dire (personally I don't see it, but that may just be me).

Edited September 18, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

There there big letter guy, fixed it for you.

Got a bit carried with the previous arguments, but it still doesn't change the validity of my post (now fixed).

[Q'iq'el]

No, go ahead. Tell me why all that effort (hint: those aren't subjective, you'll need a new argument) is worth a turn 1 surprise blitzkrieg? Why wouldn't I want a heads up so I can decide if there are other things I could be doing with my free time?

How do you know when the game will end? And what it has to do with the crew or combo?

I played against some turn-1 alpha strike crews and the games lasted 7 or 8 turns.

Back when I was a Malifaux Beginner, I've been wiped by turn 3 or 4 by crews like Rasputina or Nicodem.

My personal experience tells me, the faster you lose the more you have to learn the game. It's not up to the opponent, even if he brings an early strike crew - after all once you learn what an early strike crew does, you deploy with this in mind.

And the rest still stands - if it happens not because of lack of skill, but because you want to play some softer choices that cannot compete with very aggressive or mobile crews, then talk it over with them - bring one harder and one softer list and play two games.

And my original argument still stands as well - a game which is over in 2 turns is also a game of Malifaux. May not be your ideal (esp. if you consider the effort put into setting it up), but may be the kind of satisfaction which drives the other player (and who is to say he doesn't put the same effort into setting up games). You are supposed to meet in between.

[Q'iq'el]

I get a game of Malifaux a week if I'm lucky, and for it to be consumed by this kind of one trick nonsense is not going to keep me purchasing or introducing others to the game.

It's really not the length of the game either. If we flip Shared Supply Wagon, and my opponent doesn't have to put any effort into the Strategy to win the game, just perform a turn one combo or wait for me to come into line of sight, it's more like I'm playing some kind of special puzzle. Basically, no matter what Strategy comes up, I'm playing beat this ultra-synergy combo instead.

Two things to say about this:

- Can't you play another game right after the first ends early? With Book 1 lists or something, if that's what you prefer? I don't get 1 game a week these days, but if I have an evening for gaming, I have enough time to play 8 turns or more, so a game of 2 and 6 will still fit.

- Where the reality ends and exaggeration starts? Granted, there are scenarios some crews can't compete at, but it isn't always the other side's fault. In the Shared Supply Wagon strategy you mention, my good old no-synergy Nicodem has absolutely no fear of high synergy lists. They have to go for the wagon, he loves fighting with his entire undead horde in a throng around him, his 16" threat range means he can Paralyze at least one target trying to pick up the Wagon in turn 1.

So if you know the crews you are bringing have no chance to compete in certain scenarios or encounters, talk with your partner about removing them from the pool. Or play a Strategy you both can agree on, without randomizing it.

In the end, the full Encounter system implies both that you have all the terrain needed and that both sides have the selection of models needed to deal with each Encounter and Strategy. Most of us don't, so if we play with limited resources, we limit the selection to things we can do. If I play on my new Terraclips table, there are only 3 or 4 locations I can use. If I want to take Nicodem out, I cannot play Forested or Bayou encounters - I just take them out. Why not do the same with your Strategies, if you feel your crew is left out chance to compete in something?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[striker8]

It's not about whether I like Filth or not, or whether I am contrarian or not. I also don't care whether other likes or dislike FILTH list and give them full right to do so.

Two points:

- Why in this thread?

- Why do you (and others) feel it is OK to flaunt not-having-fun in face of people who may have fun with it, but it isn't ok to flaunt not-liking-posts-about-not-having-fun in your face? Double standards?

I'm merely expressing my dislike for such posts, because they turn perfectly rational discussion into emotional outbursts.

Talk about having tunnel vision. I think a game forum is the place to voice your dislike for people playing in a manner that is not fun. It's not flaunting it, it showing how certain things can drive players away instead of attracting them.

I'm going to call you a hypocrit on not likeing one post then you turn around and post how you hate those posts. How's this for you I dislike all your posts so you should never post again. Do you get the point?

[striker8]

The reverse of this question is:

Why should your subjective vision of a game of Malifaux deny them a game of Malifaux with the legal (and still fluffy) crew they have bought, painted (to high standard perhaps), not to mention the time they've spend going through the rules to come up with the combo (giving the benefit of the doubt, that it isn't just an internet list).

And the answer is that this is a game for two and you give some to get some. If they have a hard list they want to try out very bad, propose two games to them - the first or second with a softer list you may enjoy. Or power up your own list a little so it doesn't end in the turn 1.

Or go further and make soft list gaming days and hard list gaming days in your club, if you think situation really is that dire (personally I don't see it, but that may just be me).

Why should your subjective vison that anything that's "legal" is fine have any more weight? Or do you subscribe to the idea that if you can you should and screw it if no one else has any enjoyment?

I see you got the idea the game takes at least two players to play. Why is it so hard for you to get it that some lists are just not fun to play against? Everyone is different, and if you or some one else enjoys the "challenge" others may find it less challenging and less enjoyable. Yeah players need to talk these things out but to basicly say you're entitled to a game from anyone shows other problems. IF your playing a list in any game I find un enjoyable to play against guess what? I'm not playing you and you're not going to be able to argue your way into me changing that, you may be able to negotiate me into it but your argument will not work.

I don't do clubs but I've seen the hard/soft format attempted in the store setting with other games and it failed rather quickly just based on people being people. A hard guy can only make it on soft days and come in and angers the soft guys, a soft guy can only make it on hard days and quits since he's not having any fun and the hard guys give him crap for not being hard enough.

[striker8]

How do you know when the game will end? And what it has to do with the crew or combo?

I played against some turn-1 alpha strike crews and the games lasted 7 or 8 turns.

Back when I was a Malifaux Beginner, I've been wiped by turn 3 or 4 by crews like Rasputina or Nicodem.

My personal experience tells me, the faster you lose the more you have to learn the game. It's not up to the opponent, even if he brings an early strike crew - after all once you learn what an early strike crew does, you deploy with this in mind.

And the rest still stands - if it happens not because of lack of skill, but because you want to play some softer choices that cannot compete with very aggressive or mobile crews, then talk it over with them - bring one harder and one softer list and play two games.

And my original argument still stands as well - a game which is over in 2 turns is also a game of Malifaux. May not be your ideal (esp. if you consider the effort put into setting it up), but may be the kind of satisfaction which drives the other player (and who is to say he doesn't put the same effort into setting up games). You are supposed to meet in between.

Give me a break. a new player with basic knowedge of the game knows when his chance of winning is slim to none it's not the diffucult to figure out with the books and some knowedge of your opponents. Just because you're far more into this game than others and desire to play those games out doesn't make you anything more than motivated to do so. Not everyone needs to win, but most have a more enjoyable game when they at least have a chance and that is a fact.

So the faster you lose the more you need to learn? Great theory but flawed. I've seen too many people over the years who get rolled early by the cheese balls and power gamers that they didn't stick around long enough to learn much of anything. Add to that the casual players that don't have the time or inclination to learn all the intricacies you need to know to play against the power lists in any game that you're theory can drive out.

If you want to play a game that lasts 2 turns be my guest, I and many other don't enjoy it and I'll stand by my argument that no one has to play anyone else if they aren't going to enjoy the game

[Q'iq'el]

Striker8, all I'm saying is if you are not willing to meet in between, that's your problem and not "their" fault. They are not denying you a game, as Jonas Albrecht put it. If you can't find a gaming partner willing to play the Malifaux you like and you are not willing to give some ground to the players you have in your community, that is also your problem - gotta look for other gaming partners.

The reason why these "no fun" posts disturb me and why I speak so strong against them (even though I play rather soft lists myself) is that people unwilling to make any compromise at all come to the forums hoping the Designers will lend them an ear, modify the rules and turn the game into something they can unconditionally accept, so that all them competitive crazies *have* to change and play the game the complainers deem to be "fun" or "real Malifaux game".

This is just wrong. What is no fun to you, may be fun to others. What is a short game and wasted time for you, may be a triumph of good planning and strategic thinking for others, and great satisfaction. There's no universal platform here and you are not in the right. Neither would be the competitive players if they demanded the game to be turned into purely competitive killing grounds.

Not to mention, that as soon as the designers change the rules, there will be another thing to dislike and judge to be "no fun" and this is a vicious circle that never ends.

Malifaux is awesome game in many respects - one of the greatest achievements is that it plays perfectly in casual environment, as long as you make it clear to people the "soft" lists are expected, and it still works perfectly well in ultra-competitive environment with very hard lists. Moreover, if you want to switch from one type of play to another, you just swap 2~3 models in your list. You may have very deep story driven encounters, and you may have a battle of the minds and the mastery of the rules.

Compare that to Warhammer, which is still one of the best casual games out there, but completely falls apart (i.e. requires tons of custom rules and rulings, though GW is getting better at that) in competitive play (and requires you to collect minis for completely different game if you want to switch from one style to another), and you'll immediately see the superiority of Malifaux' ruleset. Even, if it still needs some work on the wording of certain rules (a new game after all).

What the community needs is not cuddles and not designers running left and right changing things, but for people to learn to talk over things and don't unwittingly mix up casual entertainment games with highly competitive ones (even if the later may be casual entertainment for some players). Simply talk it over before you arrange a game. And give the other side 50% of the games the way they like it, in return for their time.

This is what I mean saying the forum is not the place. Go to your gaming club and talk things over.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Math Mathonwy]

That's a strawman' date=' since we're talking about faulty logic. I thought I'm talking about netiquette though.[/quote']

No, it wasn't a strawman. You asserted a (faulty) logic chain and I disproved it. Simple as that.

Did you read the "banned"-thread. Many, many Malifaux communities are reporting that they have instigated house rules and public shunning to keep the undesirable (to them) elements of the game out of their gaming circle. It's probably not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't agree. You can play WHFB just the same competitively as you would play Malifaux. In other words, certain units are useless in a competitive setting and the top tier lists tend to look alike. And you can turn your competitive WHFB list into a casual list by making minute changes just like in Malifaux. Downgrading magic and making units smaller is often enough to turn a very competitive WHFB list into a casual one.

[Calmdown]

Striker8, all I'm saying is if you are not willing to meet in between, that's your problem and not "their" fault. They are not denying you a game, as Jonas Albrecht put it. If you can't find a gaming partner willing to play the Malifaux you like and you are not willing to give some ground to the players you have in your community, that is also your problem - gotta look for other gaming partners.

The reason why these "no fun" posts disturb me and why I speak so strong against them (even though I play rather soft lists myself) is that people unwilling to make any compromise at all come to the forums hoping the Designers will lend them an ear, modify the rules and turn the game into something they can unconditionally accept, so that all them competitive crazies *have* to change and play the game the complainers deem to be "fun" or "real Malifaux game".

Yes. Being told that "I dont want to play you because of your list, I only play for fun" winds me up no end.

A point that I often make to these people is - what do you get "fun" from? Do you get fun from winning? If winning is your source of fun, then you should bring lists that win. If you get your fun from playing the game rather than winning, then don't you have fun regardless of win or lose?

I find that "this game is no fun/your list is no fun" is pretty much just something that people who often lose use to cover up their ineptitude, in reality. And it's also something that average players use to try to make good players "feel bad" for beating them. This exists in every game, in every game type; people hate losing, its human nature. Rather than look to better themselves, it's much easier to say things like "your list is OP" or "you dont play for fun" because if the <competitive player/top list player> denies it, people just call him elitist/a jerk/whatever.

I feel pretty strongly about this because I'm not a jerk, I'm a nice guy, and people whine/complain at me a lot for being an elitist just because I take the time to learn the rules and how to play my crew. Why is it fair that I'm denied games just because I beat people with reasonable consistency? Why is it fair that I dont get to play what crew I want to play, when other people expect to be able to do the same and expect me to change and not play my favourite stuff for them?

/rage

This is just wrong. What is no fun to you, may be fun to others. What is a short game and wasted time for you, may be a triumph of good planning and strategic thinking for others, and great satisfaction. There's no universal platform here and you are not in the right. Neither would be the competitive players if they demanded the game to be turned into purely competitive killing grounds.

Not to mention, that as soon as the designers change the rules, there will be another thing to dislike and judge to be "no fun" and this is a vicious circle that never ends.

I love this. So true.

This is not to say that I disagree that the game could be better if power levels were altered by the designers; but that's the *only* level at which it can or should be controlled. The onus is on the designers here to make their game better and more fun for everyone (I do find it hilarious when casual players say that balance doesn't matter and I/others should stop bringing it up, and then go on to say they refuse to play people who run Dreamer/etc), not players to stop playing the crews they want to play because others dont like them.

[Q'iq'el]

No, it wasn't a strawman. You asserted a (faulty) logic chain and I disproved it. Simple as that.

Ehh, it was a figure of speach meant to imply the argument something is "no fun" isn't even an argument that should be used. It is subjective opinion and as such you can't use it to convince people, merely to tell them you don't like it (and you don't have to do things you don't like to begin with, so what?).

You brought an exemplary case of strawman - you asked me, IIRC, if I would have fun playing against a crew which is impossible in real Malifaux rules. That was supposed to prove what? That there's a threshold where I would find the game not fun? Perhaps there is - you don't need to build unreal examples to prove that to me.

But even without that part, it still missed the point. I wasn't arguing that people should have fun, I simply argued having or not having fun is a personal criteria and as such not very applicable (it obviously is relevant to you when you choose the games you play, but it doesn't translate to anyone else).

Did you read the "banned"-thread. Many, many Malifaux communities are reporting that they have instigated house rules and public shunning to keep the undesirable (to them) elements of the game out of their gaming circle. It's probably not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes I did. I had exactly opposite impression from you, but I dropped off from reading it quite early. I was pleased to see most people (at the moment I stopped reading) didn't ban anything at all.

I don't need clubs to ban things for me. I can speak for myself. If someone brings the crew I have no fun to play against, I'll ask him if he can bring something else next time. If I'm asked same thing, I'll gladly oblige. And if I want to test something hard, I'll ask if the other side will help with such a test.

I don't agree. You can play WHFB just the same competitively as you would play Malifaux. In other words, certain units are useless in a competitive setting and the top tier lists tend to look alike. And you can turn your competitive WHFB list into a casual list by making minute changes just like in Malifaux. Downgrading magic and making units smaller is often enough to turn a very competitive WHFB list into a casual one.

Well, the 8th edition is apparently better. I've got my Army Book (O&G) and the BRB, but I had no time to try yet (and I need to invest some more time into my troops and monsters). But last edition if you had wrong army, you pretty much had to go for different army to be competitive.

As all the Malifaux tournaments seem to prove, all you need to do here is swap 2~3 suboptimal models for some mercenaries or special forces and you're set, even without changing your master.

The difference in costs involved is one thing, the difference in time needed to prepare these models is another.

Last but not least, the Malifaux tournaments reported on these forums prove pretty well, I'd think, that you don't need to comp the lists or downgrade any aspects of the game to actually offer equal chances.

[Math Mathonwy]

A point that I often make to these people is - what do you get "fun" from? Do you get fun from winning? If winning is your source of fun, then you should bring lists that win. If you get your fun from playing the game rather than winning, then don't you have fun regardless of win or lose?

I can have a perfectly horrible game where I win extremely handsomely. I gain very, very little pleasure from beating someone utterly in a way where he doesn't stand a chance of coming out on top. The same is true the other way around (losing with no chance of victory), as well, mind, but with my mind-blowing skillzors it is a rare situation.

But really, the key to a fun game is meaningful interaction between the players. Alp bomb tends to kill this. Infinite lure chains tend to kills this. Pandora can kill this.

To illustrate the points, try taking Seamus and nothing but Guild Autopsies against a Dreamer list. Did you have fun? OK, now the natural (and correct) reaction is to blame the crew choice. Don't take Seamus and nothing but GAs. But that game is how some people experience some match-ups.

[Adran]

Did you read the "banned"-thread. Many, many Malifaux communities are reporting that they have instigated house rules and public shunning to keep the undesirable (to them) elements of the game out of their gaming circle. It's probably not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination.

Really?

I just re-read the enture thread and thats so not what I got out of it.

I made 34 groups said there were no banned models or rule changes (sometime terrain rules ignored due to supplies), 9 of which said there was occasionally some social pressure against people repeatedly using "overpowered" lists and 5 who made bannings or rule changes.

I agree with Q'iq'el, if you are finding lists unfun to the extent you don't want to play against them, then you are much better off talking to your opponents about it than posting it on the internet.

If you want advice on how to beat those unfun lists, then the internet is a good place, but we aren't going to be able to stop people using lists.

[Math Mathonwy]

Ehh' date=' it was a figure of speach meant to imply the argument something is "no fun" isn't even an argument that should be used. It is subjective opinion and as such you can't use it to convince people, merely to tell them you don't like it (and you don't have to do things you don't like to begin with, so what?).[/quote']

Basically everything discussed here is subjective opinion. "Nicodem is a fine Master" is subjective. "Dreamer is over the top" is subjective. "Guild Autopsy sucks" is subjective. "Rotten Belle rocks" is subjective. If you wish to only discuss objective facts, these forums would be very quiet outside of the rules forum.

(Actually, you can't even have objective facts at all in the strict sense in Malifaux's case as proven by Bertrand Russell's famous example of France's bald king, but that's a bit deep and outside the scope of what people usually mean when they talk about subjective vs objective divide.)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

My example demonstrated that your logic was faulty. That's all it did and it did do it. No strawman there.

Maybe you should read it past the first page, then.

I kinda thought that you were talking about the current edition as you didn't specify otherwise. Also note that even in the previous edition, only two armies were near hopeless with others being on different places of the power scale but in the stretch where they were entirely possible to win with (not unlike Malifaux's factions, then).

Eh, that's neither here nor there. The games have different scale - has no bearing on argument.

I can point you to similar "proof" about WHFB. Both games feature suboptimal models and models that are a bit too good for their points and the winning lists use lots of the latter while ignoring the former. The balance between the game is very similar (though quantitatively it might differ).

[Math Mathonwy]

Really?

I just re-read the enture thread and thats so not what I got out of it.

I made 34 groups said there were no banned models or rule changes (sometime terrain rules ignored due to supplies), 9 of which said there was occasionally some social pressure against people repeatedly using "overpowered" lists and 5 who made bannings or rule changes.

I think that's a huge number (~30%). YMMV.

[paradox]

Yes. Being told that "I dont want to play you because of your list, I only play for fun" winds me up no end.

Getting ground into the dirt because you don't "own the right models" is no fun either.

Because the game takes two willing participants, it takes both players to agree it is fun to work. If one doesn't, it won't be a fun game on either end.

I'm with Math. I do not enjoy curb-stomping my opponent. It's not a triumph of genius, its a flaw in the game. Whether that flaw is in a disparity of player skill/experience, or in game mechanics may vary.

I have minimal experience vs FILTH, no experience vs Dreamer, and minimal experience vs Hamelin.

I will not play a Hamelin player again. That game is not fun, whether I win or lose. I don't like how it plays. I think Wyrd messed up in the design there.

I can relate to people who don't like games where they feel they have no options and just lose every time. There comes a point where you decide that maybe it's not jut you, but the game.

However, the main point is: Saying people are annoying for having an opinion contrary to yours is not polite and does nothing to advance the conversation. There is no reason to be annoyed about the fact someone doesn't like X. It's their preference.

[011121]

Yes. Being told that "I dont want to play you because of your list, I only play for fun" winds me up no end.

then maybe you might consider playing a list that doesn't make people not want to play you. It's not like you have a right to a game, after all.

This gets at something I think is the root of the issue. you can play most games as a competitive solo activity- me vs you and I win when you lose, I have fun when you don't. It's zero sum.

Or you can play the game as a cooperative activity- we're playing the game to essentially tell a story that we both enjoy. Maybe it doesn't turn out exactly the way either of us thought it would but it's interesting to see how it plays out. What would happen if Rasputina met Nicodem out in the bayou when each is trying to plant evidence?

The problem is that broken lists tell a very poor story. It's a one sentence story every time- the broken list wins (barring utter incompetence of the broken list player). If all you care about is your zero sum game that's a fun time, for you. For people more interested in the cooperative game it makes no sense for them to waste their time playing you, they know how it ends and it's just not an interesting story.

This is not to say that I disagree that the game could be better if power levels were altered by the designers; but that's the *only* level at which it can or should be controlled.

If the game designers don't balance the game then of course players and people running tournaments will start refusing play for certain models/masters. They'd be crazy not to. Letting a small number of lists to ruin the entire hobby makes no sense at all.

[Koschai]

The 3rd option is a competitive game where nothing is at stake and both players are just looking for the challenge. They play lists that are on an equal footing and even though playing "to win" the losing player still had fun because it was a close nail biter and he came within ... of pulling out the win.

This is also not served by a lack of balance.

[Therapist]

first of all sory for the lack of caps but im using my phone. When i play perdita in a fun game i screw around, take her with lucius and a bunch of guardsmen, or play other masters. My most common phrase before a game is "who would you like to play against" because i enjoy playing different masters and between myself and my friends we have almost all of them so i have access to them I will not take papa loco unless im facing 1. dreamer/filth, or 2. unknown neverborn master. I think being able to lance out 16+" and cause a 12" circle of death on the first activation of the game to be a little ridiculous and i cant imagine it being somehing someone has fun dealing every time they play me. i will bust him out but only if someone wants to play against that tactic so they can get experience defeating/mitigating it. If i did play a cheese list i would say something like "hey, would you mind if i played (listofdoom) because i want to try him out against (guy youre using today)" or whatever the reason is. i try to be accomodating to my opponent. real world example: ive used papa against zoraida specifically to see how bad it is for me. turns out its pretty bad.

unless its a tournament. then my goal is for my opponent to tell his grandchildren many years later about how this one time he got destroyed in malifaux and how amazing it was.

[striker8]

Striker8, all I'm saying is if you are not willing to meet in between, that's your problem and not "their" fault. They are not denying you a game, as Jonas Albrecht put it. If you can't find a gaming partner willing to play the Malifaux you like and you are not willing to give some ground to the players you have in your community, that is also your problem - gotta look for other gaming partners.

The reason why these "no fun" posts disturb me and why I speak so strong against them (even though I play rather soft lists myself) is that people unwilling to make any compromise at all come to the forums hoping the Designers will lend them an ear, modify the rules and turn the game into something they can unconditionally accept, so that all them competitive crazies *have* to change and play the game the complainers deem to be "fun" or "real Malifaux game".

This is just wrong. What is no fun to you, may be fun to others. What is a short game and wasted time for you, may be a triumph of good planning and strategic thinking for others, and great satisfaction. There's no universal platform here and you are not in the right. Neither would be the competitive players if they demanded the game to be turned into purely competitive killing grounds.

Not to mention, that as soon as the designers change the rules, there will be another thing to dislike and judge to be "no fun" and this is a vicious circle that never ends.

Malifaux is awesome game in many respects - one of the greatest achievements is that it plays perfectly in casual environment, as long as you make it clear to people the "soft" lists are expected, and it still works perfectly well in ultra-competitive environment with very hard lists. Moreover, if you want to switch from one type of play to another, you just swap 2~3 models in your list. You may have very deep story driven encounters, and you may have a battle of the minds and the mastery of the rules.

Compare that to Warhammer, which is still one of the best casual games out there, but completely falls apart (i.e. requires tons of custom rules and rulings, though GW is getting better at that) in competitive play (and requires you to collect minis for completely different game if you want to switch from one style to another), and you'll immediately see the superiority of Malifaux' ruleset. Even, if it still needs some work on the wording of certain rules (a new game after all).

What the community needs is not cuddles and not designers running left and right changing things, but for people to learn to talk over things and don't unwittingly mix up casual entertainment games with highly competitive ones (even if the later may be casual entertainment for some players). Simply talk it over before you arrange a game. And give the other side 50% of the games the way they like it, in return for their time.

This is what I mean saying the forum is not the place. Go to your gaming club and talk things over.

I think you missed a big part of my point. I see people who find certain lists un fun to play against trying to find a compromise while people such as your self keep up on how if it's in the game you just need to live with it. I think I pointed out more than once it's not the designers job to correct things PEOPLE have gone out of their way to do in ruining others enjoyment it's up to the players but you keep saying the same then inject how they should bring harder lists to placate those who suck the fun out of the game.

Stop with the spin and rhetoric. My claims are just as "right" as your's. Although I find mine are more middle of the road and you'll find more people willing to listen and contemplate the middle position than the further extrememes.

Seeing as clubs may be non existent to the majority, FLGS's that offer play space can be spotty and you will never know who is going to be present from one visit to the next in either case make the forum as good a place as any. You might not like it but people are coming here trying to figure out how to handle these problems with the help of the community at large. Some people have tried to discuss things but as usual there are those that refuse to accept the fact their idea of fun is not the way most want to play.

[Dolomyte]

the lure bomb is not fun to play or play against, Prodigalpunk can describe a game of his kirai versus the lure bomb where when he moved out towards his objective, and into view, the model would be lured to death, He had to hide behind a building and keep summoning in the hopes to get a model alive to reach me / the objective.

We both hated that game.

I have not used the filth list against therapist yet, but he is aware of how I run the alp bomb, and can probably give you plenty of venting about it.

Therapist is an amazing player, and he has a list that I am 99% sure will destroy the alp bomb, his problem is that if he takes that list and winds up playing, say, collodi, or a grow list, or the lure bomb, he will get destroyed for not having the right models on the table to deal.