Do you choose different Schemes in a 3-4 turn game?

[Serigala]

I played in the Leeds (UK) tournament yesterday. I played Viks (with or without Von Schill) against Collette, Perdita and Ramos.

We were playing to strict time constraints, with the axe coming down on 'finish the current activation'.

In two of the games, I didn't get to finish turn three with my own models (though I think on the most part my opponents had done so, through companion chains or just having fewer models) and in the dying seconds of both games I had to choose which model to move to accomplish one of my schemes or strategies leaving others unfinished.

Against Collette, had we played on, the game might still have gone against me, but against Ramos I think had we been able to play out the rest of the game I would have turned a 0-2 loss against ramos to a 6-2 win (I forgot grudge had to be accomplished by a non-Master model).

Even in the single game I won, which went to turn 4 I think, I was having to rush to achieve objectives, which could have easily been accomplished had we gone to turn 6.

Across the tournament as a whole, most games were stopped by the clock before turn 6.

So my question is, "Do the more successful tournament players actually choose Schemes differently in tournament games, if they think there is a strong likelihood of not reaching the end of the game?"

It seems to me that Schemes which can be done and completed at any point in the game have advantages over those which depend on end game conditions (when you don't know if your mobile objective holder will get another turn or not). Thus Sabotage is easier than Stake a Claim. Denial schemes become easier also (Holdout is easier than Breakthrough).

Grudge, Assassinate and Kill Protegee are also more straightforward.

Maybe I'm just a bit slow on the uptake and this is all obvious to everyone else...what do other players do?

Edited September 12, 2011 by Serigala

[ukrocky]

Aye this happened to me at Leeds too, I was against Steve D, a player I know and get on with from the old fantasy scene and he's quite a new player. I chose exterminate on his 3 gremlins + Ophelia, and Kill protegee on his Bad Juju.

Steve chose Stake a Claim and Bodyguard on Zoraida.

The strat was shared destroy the evidence.

We only played 4 turns and I was quite lucky to be able to destroy all the evidence and get both schemes, but one more turn would have seen his Juju dead again and unable to come back up in time, and Zoraida dead so would have got me an extra 4vp difference, which in a 3 game tournament is huge.

I defo would have chosen 'early game' schemes (Sabotage, stake a claim, bodyguard etc) had I thought it would only go on 4 turns and spend more time preventing his.

The way I choose schemes at the minute is I look at round 1 as a way to get the most difficult ones out the way, and I kept sabotage and power ritual (Ie, 4vps for Marcus) until the final game to give myself the best possible chance against the, in theroy, the players I'm going to have the hardest game against.

It also sort of depends on strategy, if I get a good strat for Marcus, I'll go for difficult schemes and vice versa.

[nilus]

Yeah, in a tournament setting you need to take into account time limits. So people generally pick schemes easier to accomplish early on. Its also why you are probably not going to see a lot of Avatars in tourney play. Its a 2 point investement that won't see the table until turn 2 but most likely turn 3 or 4.

[Math Mathonwy]

How long were the time limits, btw? I think that in a three-game tournie, the rounds could be 120 minutes long (well, maybe 110 with 10 minutes between rounds) so as to ensure that people finish the games. The game isn't balanced for three turns games, IMO.

[karn987]

Yeah right away this says to me the Tourney organizer didn't get the round time right. If less then half the games can't reach turn 6 because of the clock, then it's the clocks problem. Malifaux isn't balanced at 3 turns, it's meant to go to 6 turns. About 120 min rounds seem to work really well, I've rarely ever had someone not finish in that time. Maybe 100 - 110 min rounds, but any less is shorting the players.

So unless it's meant to be a lightning round tourney, you need at least 50% (i would personally say 70%) of the games to be able to be completed through turn 6 before the clock ran out. Otherwise as you saw and people have said, a lot of Strats and Schemes become broken and others become nearly impossible.

But yes, I would take earlier to complete schemes when the time limit is an issue. Body is always a good one since the shorter turns work out in your favor as well. Kill Protege is another good one as its on you to complete asap and doesn't need to wait for the end.

Edited September 11, 2011 by karn987

[Hookers]

Experienced players don't have to look at their cards for stats and abilities, and don't have to ask their opponents what their stats and abilities are, which cuts playing time about in half. They can also largely plan out how their turns are going to go (less time spent deliberating). The more you play the faster you will get. But yes, if you know you a slow player, you scheme choice might reflect that. However, your options get limited in a 4 round tournament.

[Iron Skies]

Just a qualifier here. Does the round time include the setup time? As in that case there was 105 minutes (15 mins setup and 90 mins to play the game)

[edonil]

90 minutes? How many points?

[Iron Skies]

Was 35 stones (Recommended time was coming out at 85 mins)

[edonil]

Hm. That does seem right, although for a newer community, I'd be a little looser on the rounds...we're all still learning stuff here (the game is still young yet) and a 35 SS game tends to take more around the 120 minute mark.

[ukrocky]

I massively disagree with gaining grounds on one thing and that is the round time limits based on the fact the game has so many new players!

[Hatchethead]

I massively disagree with gaining grounds on one thing and that is the round time limits based on the fact the game has so many new players!

I would agree. When discussing the game with new players interested in playing competitively, the time limits imposed/suggested by Gaining Grounds always seem to raise an eyebrow.

[Talos]

When you actually look at the time limits for rounds in gaining ground I think they are to low. 85mins to finish a game is pretty hard.

With 85 mins you get 14.2 minutes per turn so 7.1 per player. Which means with my Collodi crew of 14 models I need to spend 30 seconds on each model to be able to get to the end of my turn in time.

There is nothing worse than playing a game to only have it called due to lack of time. Most malifaux games I find can change dramatic in a turn or two.

The problem is you need to keep the time limits low so you can play 3 games in a day.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I have always felt 90 mins was suffecient to play a 35ss game. I usually can finish the game in 60 with an equally skilled player. I find with a slow player I can finish the 6 turn game in 90 mins or at least be at the 6th turn.

High model count armies can really slow down the game and it is on the player that needs to get faster. I see a lot of local resser monopolize the turns. When they go hmm, each time I cringe because clock is ticking. That motivates me to play faster.

Gaining ground times are suggestion and work best with players familiar with the rules. Adding ten minutes to the suggested time can help a lot.

[Drake]

I would have to agree that less than 100 actual game time for turns is a bit short. This game has a lot of interactions going on, and vary varied masters and synergies. In tournament play u are likely to be playing against models and crews u haven't seen before or rarely. So that slows things down too.

[mythicFOX]

I would have to agree that less than 100 actual game time for turns is a bit short. This game has a lot of interactions going on, and vary varied masters and synergies. In tournament play u are likely to be playing against models and crews u haven't seen before or rarely. So that slows things down too.

You'd have to agree mate, I asked you to hurry up like three times in our game lol

Edited September 11, 2011 by mythicFOX
SPAG

[Drake]

You'd have to agree mate, I asked you to hurry up like three times in our game lol

That's true! The board was a headache for my crew and colliding was doing all sorts of whacky movement stuff I hadn't seen before. It's playing against things you haven't seen before that can slow things down a fair amount

[Serigala]

That's true! The board was a headache for my crew and colliding was doing all sorts of whacky movement stuff I hadn't seen before. It's playing against things you haven't seen before that can slow things down a fair amount

I'm not sure that I would agree with your reasoning here. I have played Collette before a couple of times (my son plays her) but YOU were still doing all sorts of whacky movement stuff I hadn't seen before.

Nevertheless it wasn't my unfamiliarity with what you were doing, that took the time. It was all that whacky movement stuff that you were doing...

(Neither did it help that despite 15 minutes set up we probably didn't activate our first model until 10 minutes after the official start).

I think we all play on trust to some extent, and this is necessary. We can't expect to know every ability of every model our opponent plays or question every move our opponent makes. We have to assume that they are playing the rules correctly on the most part. We can be surprised by an opponents move for lots of reasons (a convenient or inconvenient joker, a lucky flip, whacky movement stuff, or just unpredictable tactics), but when playing under the clock that can't be an excuse to play too slowly.

I appreciate that some crews are quicker to play than others, so to have equal time for each player is not the solution, but if my opponent manages to activate everything in the final turn (turn 3) just before the time finishes, leaving me able to activate only half of my models then I am likely to feel a little hard done to.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Serigala

[Hookers]

I massively disagree with gaining grounds on one thing and that is the round time limits based on the fact the game has so many new players!

if you have new players, you don't have to use gaining ground.

it was written for competitive play, not new players

[ukrocky]

But if you're running a tournament, it is competitive. But the game itself is so new I see no need for reccomended time limits. In addition the official UK GT in november is being sponsored by wyrd, thus has to run to gaining grounds but will have plenty of new players at it anyway.

[nilus]

But if you're running a tournament, it is competitive. But the game itself is so new I see no need for reccomended time limits. In addition the official UK GT in november is being sponsored by wyrd, thus has to run to gaining grounds but will have plenty of new players at it anyway.

Actually if you read Gaining grounds it gives the TOs a vast amount of leeway on what you do or don't. If the TO chooses to run longer rounds I doubt anyone at Wyrd would have any problem with that(or withdraw support).

I personally think at a competitive level the time limits work. For experienced players. For new players they are very tough. Its why I recommend that conventions run more then one event. One for experienced players running straight Gaining Grounds and another for new players that allows for longer play rounds.

[Hookers]

Gencon even had tons of new players.

I'm just saying, like Nilus said, that as the TO you can do whatever you want. It's your event.

[Dolomyte]

I've been in some untimed, or long timed 40k tournaments, and events that started at 10am finished on the following sunday. You need to put in a cap. It adds to the challenge.

My local play group has our own egg timers that we practice with for the month leading up to an event.

[poulpox]

I agree with 85min too short, particularly with the Avatars coming up: I might not want to rush my avatar manifestation and expect it to pitch up half way through the game, turn 3 or 4, but it becomes pointless if the game ends there or a turn later. Also playing competitively doesn't mean not being relaxed, or have I got that wrong? It's hard to be relaxed if you can't allow yourself a bit of reflexion (I know there's a fine balance and for an ideal condition there has to be a little rush and clock ticking; it's all about finding that right amount).

My opinion is between 105 and 120min a game has full potential coming through (this won't be enough for very slow/new players, so that doesn't change anything, but for more experience players who like to take a bit more time or have a big crew to handle it'd be perfect); many times 20min extra is all is needed to make a definite shift in completion of strat/schemes, particualrly towards the end of the game

EDIT: coming back to the OP, it is hard to pick schemes according to time limit as usually schemes are limited to one use/day in tourneys so you'd run out of those quickly achieved schemes. Even in competition, my take is that the game conditions shouldn't be an impediment to play a full game of Malifaux, or otherwise you lose a little too much of the game's flavour (and this game has plenty of it )

Edited September 13, 2011 by poulpox