Hard Comp Restrictions

[Guy in Suit]

I got tired of seeing the same crews roled out again and again and want to encourage some diversity - so will be making some 'hard' comp changes at our next big event. The changes are pretty minor - just a small tweak here and there, but wanted to know what your thoughts are.

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=301786&postcount=2

Cheers.

[McNs]

They don't seem like the end of the world, though I'm morally opposed to changing the ss cost/rules of models. Be interested in hearing how it worked.

[Dolomyte]

Out of curiousity why the change to make rats not be able to take interact actions?

I understand the other ones, just curious about this one. guessing something in your local meta?

[Hookers]

no one plays hoffman? perdita is book 1 you know...

[Justin]

I'm not a fan of comp in tournaments.

Miniatures games are going to have an element of imbalance no matter how you cut it. They may as well be imbalanced consistently.

However, I'm all for variety. If it's a frequently occurring event, you could just note which master each player brings and require that they bring a different one to the next event. Or make it more of a league deal where they earn points for using different masters/schemes/etc.

[poulpox]

I'm really not for this, I think the comps can/will get too subjective; I believe the game designers work hard to try and balance out the game without us needing to further reajust it.

[Math Mathonwy]

I love it!

Different events having different restrictions and rules is awesome in my book. Keeps the game fresh. Not for every event, mind, but it's good that some people think outside of the box. The game isn't perfect so being deathly afraid to shift the balance seems very counter-intuitive.

These are very conservative changes - I would favour even more radical changes to really force people to take unorthodox lists but since this is the first comped tournament for Malifaux that I've heard of, I understand the will to start easy.

Thumbs up! And be sure to let us know how it went

I'm really not for this, I think the comps can/will get too subjective; I believe the game designers work hard to try and balance out the game without us needing to further reajust it.

Does this mean that you believe that Malifaux is perfectly balanced?

[ProdigalPunk]

I am not a fan, but I am interested in seeing how it goes.

Each round will be organized as follows:

1. Tables are announced. Discuss terrain with your opponent.

2. Each player selects their Master and players reveal their selections simultaneously.

3. Players flip for their Strategy on the core encounter chart simultaneously. After the results are revealed players may decide to spend the SS to re-flip. (Both players decide whether or not to re-flip before the second flip is made.)

4. Players select their 35SS crews

5. Flip for deployment and then deploy

6. Select up to two schemes per round. Master and Faction specific schemes are not allowed. You may only select each scheme ONCE during the tournament. Write down your selected schemes on your Player Card BEFORE announcing.

Scoring will use the differential method from Gaining ground with total VP's as the tie-breaker.

Rules Changes in Effect - READ CAREFULLY

PLEASE bring a copy of any obscure rules marshall ruling if you wish to cite it during the event. Otherwise the Rules Manual trumps all.

Picking Masters then flipping Schemes is probably going to result in less diversity then more to be honest.

You would be foolish not to go with

Guild- Perdita

Rezzers- Kiria

Arcanists- Colette

Neverborn- who ever you want really

Those three are your best best against blind objectives as speed is more likely going to be a factor. There might be a little diversity, but those are the safe choices, and not knowing what you are going into it would be wise to always play it safe.

[poulpox]

I think it is balanced enough yes, maybe I'm too naive

I do agree putting special rules for events is a good idea, but not in the shape of changing ss costs or cache (ie modifying the rules/cards); I think the way to make events fun is to keep them themed, with maybe even a minimum of storyline; this way troops choice could be limited but only to follow a theme/story rather than just "this model is too buff"

Edited September 10, 2011 by poulpox

[ProdigalPunk]

I love it!

Different events having different restrictions and rules is awesome in my book. Keeps the game fresh. Not for every event, mind, but it's good that some people think outside of the box. The game isn't perfect so being deathly afraid to shift the balance seems very counter-intuitive.

These are very conservative changes - I would favour even more radical changes to really force people to take unorthodox lists but since this is the first comped tournament for Malifaux that I've heard of, I understand the will to start easy.

This is not intended to be a slight at the OP at all, but this is really not mixing things up at all. It just seems more like a home brewed banded and restricted list more so then anything. I do like the idea about people playing any faction though. I do not like the frame work it is set in though, as without knowing the strategy or the opponents faction I am not sure what would compel you spontaneous and random.

Maybe you could give out bonus points or something. A VP per Master used, and a bonus 2 VP if you use a different faction each round. A bonus VP if you play a master no one else used in the Tourny.

I would be cool to see things get really out of the box (although this does not apply to the original topic, more of a maybe next time), where you pick two masters and 50 soul stones of models and you pick a Master and your opponent picks your crew, and you do the same for them. Obviously you would need to pick a faction for that, and you would need to have a player base that could support it, since people would need to have 45-50 SS worth of models, or else someone would pick Colette and then only put 35 ss worth of Showgirls in their list. This would help against the crews the OP seems to see most often though, as those crews rely so heavily on model selection.

[Cornelious1424]

Don't know how much I care for the order of steps 2 and 3. Might as well make it a "Select Master" tournament. Either way, should be a good time regardless. Gunna see how many Bros Grim guys I can get to go with me.

[Pipeline]

If the problem is that you are seeing the same lists too often and assuming the tourney is a scrap, I think you should leave the stats and rules alone and try to work something like this:

if every miniature you use(hire, summon, place, produce anally, etc.) in any of your games is painted(3 color yadda yadda) AND based, it counts as a win or 8 points or however it works in your scoring system. Maybe it's a per game basis and you get 2vp.

if the player used 3 or more different masters, it counts as a win or 8 points or however it works in your scoring system. Maybe 2 or more masters counts as a tie or 4 points or etc.. Maybe it's a per game basis worded similar to "If the player used a master not used in a previous match in this tournament, today, score 2vp for this round."

I don't feel anything here is at odds with the spirit of the game as intended by the hard working game developers.

The only point of contention I can think of is that time old argument that the player with the most toys wins(to which I do not subscribe).

These are just some rough ideas. I would love creative input on how to improve upon them. Saying that you think they suck is not creative input.

[dgraz]

not sure how much I like the idea of altering the actual game rules.

I don't believe in the idea of 'he who has the most toys wins'. I've stated before that if you owned everything for one faction, you'd still be paying less than if you purchased just one playable army for a GW game, and you can easily pay just as much for a PP force.

With that said, it might be too restrictive, but I like the idea of saying that you can't play the same master twice. Even with a healthy amount of choices per master (in a 3 round tourney) you're still spending what $200-$250. That's on the extreme low end of investments for a miniature game.

[Math Mathonwy]

With that said, it might be too restrictive, but I like the idea of saying that you can't play the same master twice. Even with a healthy amount of choices per master (in a 3 round tourney) you're still spending what $200-$250. That's on the extreme low end of investments for a miniature game.

Malifaux is, by far, the most expensive skirmish minis game I've seen. Alkemy, Hell Dorado, Eden, Freebooter's Fate, Infinity, Nemesis and so on and so forth allow for a very efficient tournie force for far less investment.

Minis games are not just GW and PP you know.

[dgraz]

Minis games are not just GW and PP you know.

I do know that.

I said miniature game, not skirmish game in my example. Considering that the three top selling miniature games companies are GW, PP and Wyrd I thought the comparison appropriate.

[Q'iq'el]

If diversity is the problem you locally have, why not try the options available in the official rules before you go and apply custom rules?

In other words, try making it Gaining Ground - Fixed Crews tournament and see where it goes from there? if you are concerned about players not owning full factions go with Open Faction variant.

Edit: Yes, you will loose some players with small selection of models. You'll also encourage others to take a look at something else than the "internet lists". That alone may change your local metagame quite a bit - people often play the same 3~4 crews, because they haven't even bothered going through the books and designing the lists for themselves.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Guy in Suit]

If diversity is the problem you locally have' date=' why not try the options available in the official rules before you go and apply custom rules?[/quote']

We weren't born yesterday and have been playing gaining ground scenarios since they came out. Thanks for playing.

[Guy in Suit]

Don't know how much I care for the order of steps 2 and 3. Might as well make it a "Select Master" tournament. Either way, should be a good time regardless. Gunna see how many Bros Grim guys I can get to go with me.

I'm up in the air on this change as well. I thought it would really mix things up - The idea is that you play who you LIKE not who you think is the most effective. If you guys think it is too drastic we can go back to the 'standard' method - but I definitely think it would take some of the pressure off people to tailor their master selection and instead just go with what they enjoyed.

[Q'iq'el]

We weren't born yesterday and have been playing gaining ground scenarios since they came out. Thanks for playing.

Thanks for mentioning that crucial piece of information. I didn't realize it is obvious.

And how Fixed crews/Open faction worked for you? People brought 3~4 different masters? Or just skipped the tournament?

As far as your comp goes, I can agree with change to Alps and Siblings. Comp is comp and even if the community will come up with good counters to these builds one day, it makes sense to limit them in the events and tournaments in the meantime.

I think Stitched for 6 would be overpriced - people have knee-jerk reaction to them, but they really don't bring enough to the crew to warrant that cost. Their value is more in what they support and hide than in their own abilities - and you are already limiting these other combos with the changes mentioned above.

Stitched on their own, they may deny opponents VPs, but they are not exactly gaining them either.

I'm really surprised at the hit to Perdita and to Colette. I suppose it is less of a balancing tool and more of a vindictive "don't play this master we see too much of it". I can't imagine why you'd want to limit the pool of these models. Perdita doesn't really deserve that and it is more or less insignificant in case of Colette, as she can make her own SS anyway. If it is just to change the way she is played - i.e. to stop the Dove factory in the Turn 1, then all your players need is a minor modification to the order of things or to give up a secondary model and you have the factory up and running once again.

I don't know Kirai well enough to comment.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[nilus]

Personally I think changing up the rules is always up to the TO and can be fun. Personally I don't do model changes because I don't want the headache. Every time you change a rule you get some people happy and others mad and I don't want to potentially alienate any players.

Also I am lazy

I am more inclined to write story encounter strategies and theme events that make people think outside the box and diversify there crew selections.

[Ratty]

I'm not a biggest fan of changing models rules, however none of them seem that unreasonable for the models in question. Though they are not exactly the changes I would have made if I was going to try and fix these models.

I'm not really sure why you have altered the cache of the Masters you have chosen though, they all seem really arbitary. I don't think any of them are that necessary.

The real issue I think is the change in the setup. By all means try it out. However I think you will find it's going to have the reverse effect to what you claim to be after. One advantage to choosing Masters after Strategies is that you will find some of the more situational Masters seeing play. As soon as you take knowledge of the Strategy out people will play every game with the same Master, ie. the one that they believe is best overall.

[Hookers]

The idea is that you play who you LIKE not who you think is the most effective.

I just ran a story encounters tournament yesterday to encourage this as well. I hand wrote the strategies with the metagame in mind (who the good players were, who the new players were, what masters are good against each other, etc.) and predetermined the matchups before hand.

The strategies weren't 100% balanced, as I obviously didn't have any time or opportunity to play test them, but I think it went pretty well.

1st place game was between McMourning and Leveticus, with Leveticus winning.

2nd place was Nicodem v. Lilith, Lilith won.

3rd place was Pandora v. Sonnia, Sonnia won.

I stacked the odds against the best players and they still came out on top. Leveticus had to die 8 times for half of one strategy (2 VP) and ended up dying an unprecedented 11 times in one game.

(Edit: for those wondering how this is possible, he just looks at the top cards of his deck and stacks the odds, I figured getting to turn 9 would be tough, and of course he has to not actually die, and it turns out he got to turn 12)

Also I like the idea of you changing the things that you did, just to see how it goes. I think local tournaments are a great laboratory to try things out. Post up the results, it might even help out the devs...

Edited September 11, 2011 by Hookers

[Math Mathonwy]

Hookers, that sounds really, really cool! :thumb:

[Hookers]

I might post up some of the better ones in a bit

[Guy in Suit]

I'm not a biggest fan of changing models rules, however none of them seem that unreasonable for the models in question. Though they are not exactly the changes I would have made if I was going to try and fix these models.

I agree with you, but I can't think of any other way to stop every Neverborn crew from containing two stitched togethers, especially in slaughter. I'd hate to outright ban them - so we will see if people look elsewhere when they cost a bit more.

I also agree that it is far from the changes I'd implement if I were a game designer... but alas I am not so I tried to keep it as simple as possible so people wouldn't be blindsided by changes to the text of existing rules.

What changes would you implement?