Exorcist - one too many anti-resurrectionists?

[Justin]

What do you consider constant? Would a yearly review of the rules be too much?

Yes.

Customers will hold it against the company. They will scream that Wyrd is "requiring" them to buy new product. That they are attempting to make money off of their own mistakes. Hell, we saw those arguments with the rules manual after a year and a half, and the changes in there were direly needed.

To rewrite your rules (and actually expect to sell them) you can't do it because the game is flawed or imbalanced. It has to be when people have been playing with the rules so long that they are bored with them. You have to do it when people are yearning for something new, not just when they think the old version is broken. You should have them anticipating the new version, not just hating on the old one. And that takes a lot of time.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Yes.

Customers will hold it against the company. They will scream that Wyrd is "requiring" them to buy new product. That they are attempting to make money off of their own mistakes. Hell, we saw those arguments with the rules manual after a year and a half, and the changes in there were direly needed.

To rewrite your rules (and actually expect to sell them) you can't do it because the game is flawed or imbalanced. It has to be when people have been playing with the rules so long that they are bored with them. You have to do it when people are yearning for something new, not just when they think the old version is broken. You should have them anticipating the new version, not just hating on the old one. And that takes a lot of time.

But that's just it. We've already seen one successful rules update marketed to players, and not based on players being bored with the rules. Why not another $15 and/or a free PDF? Would Malifaux still be playable today if it kept its original rules? Would you have argued against the rules manual if it were being announced today?

[edonil]

So, Lalochezia, what would you recommend they do about the imbalances that really are bad? Should they just leave them alone, chalk it up to bad luck? For example, someone recommended elsewhere that Wyrd deal with the Alp bomb by making Alps Rare 3. Is that something that you're against?

[Dolomyte]

Yes.

Customers will hold it against the company. They will scream that Wyrd is "requiring" them to buy new product. That they are attempting to make money off of their own mistakes. Hell, we saw those arguments with the rules manual after a year and a half, and the changes in there were direly needed.

To rewrite your rules (and actually expect to sell them) you can't do it because the game is flawed or imbalanced. It has to be when people have been playing with the rules so long that they are bored with them. You have to do it when people are yearning for something new, not just when they think the old version is broken. You should have them anticipating the new version, not just hating on the old one. And that takes a lot of time.

Frankly im more upset about the rules manual today then I was when it came out. It was meant to clear up the rules but instead it added a whole different layer of headaches. If they wanted to charge 15$ for a rules only manual it should have actually fixed the rules correctly the first time. then we would be having less discussions like this.

Also, for things like the alp bomb, if something is broken it should be fixed. We should not just live with it so little jimmy doesent need to be concerned with having to get new cards. Make the card available for printout for free. (in this case, I agree with the proposed Rare 3 fix)

Edit - If someone would hold it against wyrd for fixing the issues in their game as they came up, I would not really want to play against that person anyway. I think the gold standard is to fix a problem when you see it, preferably in a way that does not create more problems. (Rule of equivolency ring a bell)

[Justin]

But that's just it. We've already seen one successful rules update marketed to players, and not based on players being bored with the rules. Why not another $15 and/or a free PDF? Would Malifaux still be playable today if it kept its original rules? Would you have argued against the rules manual if it were being announced today?

Yes. One that was desperately needed, was provided to them for free, and still had plenty of people who were against it.

No, Malifaux would not still be playable today with the original rules. And I would not argue against it today. (Hell, I argued for it a full year before it was ever even released)

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10495&highlight=book

Ok, they went with a cheaper book instead of a nice hard cover book. But my point was that there needed to be a selling point (whatever it was).

But you have to look at the level of need. What did the rules manual reprint? The entire movement section, every strategy and scheme, entire sections were deleted, examples which were down right inaccurate in the first printing were changed, etc. It wasn't making the game balanced (well, it did help there) it was making the game playable, and consistent. What would another printing of the rules manual in sixth months accomplish compared to that? And can the inequities that are being talked about even be fixed with such a printing since they mostly are about individual model rules?

It's a different situation. There's a difference between a company which had never released a book before fixing all of its errors and growing pains, and a company releasing new rules every year to keep tournament players happy at the cost of inconsistency. And that's not even taking into account the investment of time and resources that would go into creating it every year.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Yes. One that was desperately needed, was provided to them for free, and still had plenty of people who were against it.

No, Malifaux would not still be playable today with the original rules. And I would not argue against it today. (Hell, I argued for it a full year before it was ever even released)

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10495&highlight=book

Ok, they went with a cheaper book instead of a nice hard cover book. But my point was that there needed to be a selling point (whatever it was).

But you have to look at the level of need. What did the rules manual reprint? The entire movement section, every strategy and scheme, entire sections were deleted, examples which were down right inaccurate in the first printing were changed, etc. It wasn't making the game balanced (well, it did help there) it was making the game playable, and consistent. What would another printing of the rules manual in sixth months accomplish compared to that? And can the inequities that are being talked about even be fixed with such a printing since they mostly are about individual model rules?

It's a different situation. There's a difference between a company which had never released a book before fixing all of its errors and growing pains, and a company releasing new rules every year to keep tournament players happy at the cost of inconsistency. And that's not even taking into account the investment of time and resources that would go into creating it every year.

Well then, why not just do it by need? This is flagship game for both Wyrd and its creator. It's not sane to expect a perfect set of rules, even the second time around (lets face it, the RM was a 2nd edition all but in name). As the game continues to get played, cracks will reveal themselves. Get enough cracks, and enough fixes for them, and release a book. Maybe not on anything as arbitrary as an annual schedule, but between monthly errata and setting things in stone, it's the best option.

[Justin]

So, Lalochezia, what would you recommend they do about the imbalances that really are bad? Should they just leave them alone, chalk it up to bad luck? For example, someone recommended elsewhere that Wyrd deal with the Alp bomb by making Alps Rare 3. Is that something that you're against?

Well, for starters, I think we would disagree about imbalances that are "really bad."

I can beat the alp bomb.

So, I wouldn't change it.

BUT I do see your point. There are some match ups that are downright unplayable. Hamelin versus Ophelia for example. There I think they either have two choices: give Ophelia access to more height two models in future books, or errata Hamelin.

Granted, I am against errata in general. But there are some situations where it is necessary.

However, I wouldn't suggest they do it immediately. The attitude of people in this thread (and I think on the forums in general) is that if there is such a "blatant" inequity Wyrd should just fix it immediately. But that gets into the problems earlier about consistency. I think they should wait until they release something like the faction decks and fix them all at once. Or maybe even a year or two down the road. So, although I'm against reworking an entire faction because it does better in tournaments, if a model makes the out come of a game apparent before you even play it (note, that's my definition of imbalance) yes, it should be changed. But people may need to wait.

[DeleteAccount]

Frankly im more upset about the rules manual today then I was when it came out. It was meant to clear up the rules but instead it added a whole different layer of headaches. If they wanted to charge 15$ for a rules only manual it should have actually fixed the rules correctly the first time. then we would be having less discussions like this.

What are these problems exactly? I mean, the rulebook itself is pretty solid except maybe for the schemes section and some strategies that are too easy.

[Hatchethead]

I love Malifaux. I admit there are imbalances. I assume the Wyrd developers are well aware of the power scaling "issues" inherent between Books 1 and 2. They're not idiots, after all. Maybe it was even intentional, who knows? Do I believe they should drag ass out here and explain themselves? No, absolutely not, though it would certainly be neat to hear them expound on the topic of balance. Would I prefer that all Masters be equally viable in a competitive environment assuming the appropriate strategy and faction match-up? Of course. Will that ever happen? It's a complex system, not holding my breath. Do I still love the game ...?

... and so the circle is complete.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Jonas Albrecht]

I love Malifaux.

This, and it being a new company and a brand new game, are the reasons I give Malifaux a huge pass. However, with the storyline becoming increasingly not worth my time, the rules are doing all the lifting.

[Justin]

Well then, why not just do it by need? This is flagship game for both Wyrd and its creator. It's not sane to expect a perfect set of rules, even the second time around (lets face it, the RM was a 2nd edition all but in name). As the game continues to get played, cracks will reveal themselves. Get enough cracks, and enough fixes for them, and release a book. Maybe not on anything as arbitrary as an annual schedule, but between monthly errata and setting things in stone, it's the best option.

By need I would totally agree with.

But there are two points that really need to be looked at, I think.

1) What is "need?"

2) How often?

1 I think it simple enough. I would define need as "any situation which makes the out come of a game apparent before it has been played." And this does happen, and it should be fixed.

2 is really the tricky one. Monthly errata I would not even consider a real option. The rules change far too quickly. I know we all want a perfectly balanced game, but we also want new players who don't have to wade through 18 different versions of errata because the monthly errata has been out for a year and a half. And yes, Wyrd could just take down older versions, but people get used to playing them and teach people the incorrect, odler versions. They print them out. They go into a tournament not realizing it's the first of the month and the rules have entirely changed and their alp bomb is illegal. These situations turn people off games far quicker than one faction doing better on the average in tournaments.

[Jonas Albrecht]

These situations turn people off games far quicker than one faction doing better on the average in tournaments.

There haven't been enough tournaments to prove this.

At this point, I actually agree with you. Wyrd should hold off on any more largescale changes until the next actual edition gets released. But those changes should be in the works now, getting playtested now.

[Dolomyte]

What are these problems exactly? I mean, the rulebook itself is pretty solid except maybe for the schemes section and some strategies that are too easy.

the schemes and strategies are my chief complaint. I never posted in the thread because it made me too angry and I knew I would use the F word alot, but you can search the rules forum for the thread that talked about noting, and secretly noting objectives. Secretly note means the exact same thing as note, or so it was ruled. Why have the different wording in a rules manual that was meant to clear up wording problems.

Having book 2 cards with misprints on them also pisses me off. but thats not a rules manual thing, thats a quality control thing. And I understand wyrd is a smallish company, but I fully expect them to compete with the big boys.

GW errata's and faq's something when they feel its a problem. The neverborn power level is a problem.

@Lalo - Just because you can get around the alp bomb does not mean it is not broken. You can get around hamelin as gremlins (by picking the right schemes and flipping the right strategy) so should that stay how it is? (note, with book 3 they released height 2 gremlins)

The neverborn are overpowered, tournament results show it, including the mother of all tournaments, gencon, and theoryfaux shows it. What more information does wyrd need to act?

[Dolomyte]

There haven't been enough tournaments to prove this.

At this point, I actually agree with you. Wyrd should hold off on any more largescale changes until the next actual edition gets released. But those changes should be in the works now, getting playtested now.

I agree that large scale changes can be held off on, and probably are not that needed. However small changes, such as

alps - rare 3

Lelitu - Double Take - add a line at the end that states "this second casting of lure cannot trigger double take."

Stitched Together - Does not Die - Add a line at the end that states "This model counts as being killed by your opponent for the purpose of victory points, strategies, and schemes"

Kidnap - Add a line "This scheme must be announced"

BAM. four little changes that I think would make the neverborn significantly less OP.

Edit - Double BAM - Add a line to (1) Drain Power - This model counts as being killed by your opponent for the purpose of victory points, strategies, and schemes.

[Justin]

the schemes and strategies are my chief complaint. I never posted in the thread because it made me too angry and I knew I would use the F word alot, but you can search the rules forum for the thread that talked about noting, and secretly noting objectives. Secretly note means the exact same thing as note, or so it was ruled. Why have the different wording in a rules manual that was meant to clear up wording problems.

Having book 2 cards with misprints on them also pisses me off. but thats not a rules manual thing, thats a quality control thing. And I understand wyrd is a smallish company, but I fully expect them to compete with the big boys.

GW errata's and faq's something when they feel its a problem. The neverborn power level is a problem.

@Lalo - Just because you can get around the alp bomb does not mean it is not broken. You can get around hamelin as gremlins (by picking the right schemes and flipping the right strategy) so should that stay how it is? (note, with book 3 they released height 2 gremlins)

The neverborn are overpowered, tournament results show it, including the mother of all tournaments, gencon, and theoryfaux shows it. What more information does wyrd need to act?

I can beat the alp bomb on any strategy with any master, given I play really well and have enough luck.

If Ophelia plays Hamelin (in general) and definitely with the wrong strategy...she just loses. No matter what she does, or how lucky she gets.

There is a difference there.

Now, that said, I can always just choose not to use Ophelia if I get those strategies, so that is a pretty good argument for Wyrd not "fixing" that problem. Doesn't help your case about the alp bomb though.

Also, was my point ever that the alp bomb was not very powerful?

No.

My point was that although there is imbalance, that's a part of the game, and a part that's really not going to go away. (honestly, a part I don't even think I would want to go away) And so long as the out come of the game is not apparent before it starts, I'm ok with it.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Also, was my point ever that the alp bomb was not very powerful?

No.

My point was that although there is imbalance, that's a part of the game, and a part that's really not going to go away.

People are telling you how to make it go away.

[Justin]

There haven't been enough tournaments to prove this.

At this point, I actually agree with you. Wyrd should hold off on any more largescale changes until the next actual edition gets released. But those changes should be in the works now, getting playtested now.

There have been enough other miniature games which run frequent tournaments to prove it.

40k tournaments are hugely popular, and that system is (at the VERY least) as imbalanced as Malifaux. (I would say Malifaux was better balanced, but that's not the point I'm trying to make, and see no reason to start the debate)

[Dolomyte]

and not even make it go away, just make it far less obnoxious. Do you really need someone to drop 6 alps on you? is that a fun game to play, even if you win?

3 is a hell of a lot of alps.

[Justin]

People are telling you how to make it go away.

Yes.

They were saying the same things long before I got to this thread, and this was my response:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=294951&postcount=147

And we have come full circle.

Now, I just want to be clear. I love a good debate. (It's why I'm in here) And I'm all for pushing Wyrd to do better. I'm all for pointing out things that are broken. (How else can we expect balance?) But I do not expect these things to happen NOW.

And, honestly, even after we have been granted what we ask, the next broken thing will just pop up. And we'll be here again.

[Dolomyte]

There have been enough other miniature games which run frequent tournaments to prove it.

40k tournaments are hugely popular, and that system is (at the VERY least) as imbalanced as Malifaux. (I would say Malifaux was better balanced, but that's not the point I'm trying to make, and see no reason to start the debate)

40k is balanced by its imbalance. if you play neverborn and have access to their whole repertoire *I know I raped the spelling of that word, im sorry* you would have the competetive edge for all of last year, most of the year before, and probably a good chunk of this year (book 3 models pending).

in 40k, you would have the competetive edge as a dark elder player until the space wolf codex came out, then you would have the edge as a space wolf player until the chaos codex come out, then you would have the edge until the elder codex came out. They are amazing at subtraction by addition.

[Justin]

and not even make it go away, just make it far less obnoxious. Do you really need someone to drop 6 alps on you? is that a fun game to play, even if you win?

3 is a hell of a lot of alps.

Not my point at all.

[Dolomyte]

Yes.

They were saying the same things long before I got to this thread, and this was my response:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=294951&postcount=147

And we have come full circle.

Now, I just want to be clear. I love a good debate. (It's why I'm in here) And I'm all for pushing Wyrd to do better. I'm all for pointing out things that are broken. (How else can we expect balance?) But I do not expect these things to happen NOW.

And, honestly, even after we have been granted what we ask, the next broken thing will just pop up. And we'll be here again.

and so we should be. as something broken pops up we should bitch, they should fix it, and then we should find the next unbalanced thing. If we ever find that happy minute where nothing is broken, we should all kiss our asses goodbye because the apocolypse is here.

[Justin]

40k is balanced by its imbalance. if you play neverborn and have access to their whole repertoire *I know I raped the spelling of that word, im sorry* you would have the competetive edge for all of last year, most of the year before, and probably a good chunk of this year (book 3 models pending).

in 40k, you would have the competetive edge as a dark elder player until the space wolf codex came out, then you would have the edge as a space wolf player until the chaos codex come out, then you would have the edge until the elder codex came out. They are amazing at subtraction by addition.

And you would...prefer that?

Ok.

To each their own.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Yes.

They were saying the same things long before I got to this thread, and this was my response:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=294951&postcount=147

And we have come full circle.

Now, I just want to be clear. I love a good debate. (It's why I'm in here) And I'm all for pushing Wyrd to do better. I'm all for pointing out things that are broken. (How else can we expect balance?) But I do not expect these things to happen NOW.

And, honestly, even after we have been granted what we ask, the next broken thing will just pop up. And we'll be here again.

Yeah, but I'm not advocating up to the minute errata. Just that these issues not be treated with the same shoulder shrugging that I'm afraid you seem to think we should be employing.

[Dolomyte]

And you would...prefer that?

Ok.

To each their own.

At least someone else gets to have the advantage for a while. in the current system its neverborn or bust baby.

Tournament wise. Playing with friends I think malifaux is fantastic.