The Red Joker

[CrazyCarl]

I noticed that the Red Joker generated something like 3 pages of discussion in the Seamus thread on the Resser forum, so why not continue the discussion here. I feel that a lot of people had some valid comments on the RJ, and I agreed with some and disagreed with others.

So what changes, if any, would you like to see to the Red Joker? Personally I'd really only like to see one change, and that is it can be used when flipped in any duel, but on -ve flips, it only counts as a Severe/14.

[Spiku]

negative flips giving a better chance at red joker is part of the game. I like the critical hit/critical fumble aspect. It's not going away, the discussion has gone on since day 1 of cards.

[Ozz]

I have to say i do love the aspect of the red joker just blowing stuff up, but i also agree with Calmdowns view of it can change the game from a clear loss to an easy win, and random luck doing that i don't think is such a good thing.

There were two suggestions made that i liked the idea of.

1, The damage from red joker changing from Sever + another flip to a Severe and Weak Dmg

2, Removing the lowest dmg profile from the flips on a negative twist Eg, you hit on a double Negative and flip a 3, 11, and the red Joker, Removing the lowest dmg level would be the 3 (eg weak level) and using the 11 for severe dmg.

[Mike3838]

How about both jokers keep their current effects on a single negative/positive, but if you double positive flip then you're not forced to use the BJ and if you're double negative you can't choose the red.

Improves HtW, and makes the Joker damage a little less spiky, and also simulates the fact that if you hit someone *really hard*, you're unlikely to get completely no damage, and vice versa.

Mike

[Rathnard]

Honestly, I'm in the "It's fine as it is" camp.

Those severe turns in luck from pulling the red joker on a or the black on a is part of what makes the game so entertaining for me. Sure in rare cases it might turn a comfortable win into a complete loss, but it ALWAYS results in a great story for me and my opponent.

I see how it could be frustrating in a competitive setting, but what wargame DOESN'T have a random element that can screw you over at any time? Whether it's failing all your 2+ terminator saves in a game of 40k, getting snake eyes on the critical assasination run in Warmachine or your opponent flipping the red joker on the damage flip vs your master, it's just something that you have to deal from time to time with and preferably, laugh about.

If anything I'd argue that in Malifaux, the random element is quite minimal compared to other wargames. While you could consistently roll ones and twos throughout an entire turn of Warhammer/Warmachine, the nature of the deck means that in a single turn you're generally going to get an even spread of high/low cards (jokers included). Whether the high cards flip at the best time is going to vary, of course, but the point stands.

[VaeVictus]

I see how it could be frustrating in a competitive setting, but what wargame DOESN'T have a random element that can screw you over at any time?

- I remember a game in Warhammer Fantasy where 6 of my friends High Elves spearmen got charged by 6 Kroxigors and killed them in the first round ^^

[Fetid Strumpet]

My only issue with the Red Joker is that it is so much better than the Black. I really dislike how h2w interacts with it, and if a change were made I'd like no additional extra flip on dmg, just severe.

[Hatchethead]

Personally I'd really only like to see one change, and that is it can be used when flipped in any duel, but on -ve flips, it only counts as a Severe/14.

+1 (as stated in the Seamus thread).

No additional flip during damage flips; everything else is fine (imo).

[rancor709]

I'll preface this by saying I play Ressurectionists. I like how the red and black jokers work currently in the game and am in the its fine camp. The reason being all games have some screw you over element to them and really there aren't many in Malifaux outside of the joker mechanics.

Now I will say that the biggest issue is hard 2 wound 2 is a hinderence when a red joker hasn't been played yet, it does basically make it very likely that your high cost model will die to something that has no business killing it. I've taken down a Hoodrider with a bell simple because of a negative flip red joker, with a second sever. So I would argue the joker is fine but HTW2 is an issue.

The only thing i'd like to see is hard to wound 2 means red joker can't be selected if it is flipped, no real change to joker mechanics more a change to h2w2. But if that change doesn't happen I'd be fine with it, just means you have to be extra careful with HTW2 models more than one would initially think.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Or perhaps we should ask them to obey the truth in advertising laws and ask them to change the ability to:

Hard to Wound 2 (Sometimes)

[harbinger]

Or perhaps we should ask them to obey the truth in advertising laws and ask them to change the ability to:

Hard to Wound 2 (Sometimes)

then it would have to be

Hard to Wound 2*

*(Sometimes)

[13th Warrior]

I'm definitely in the "it's fine" camp.

It's very situational - you have to be close to the end of the deck (and not be holding onto it for 3 turns looking for the best time to play it) to have any confidence that it'll come up, and there's still a fair chance it'll come up on an attack flip. Also, there's nothing to stop a Hard to Wound (2) model cheating in a lower card to make it a single flip.

I think it's effect is being blown out of proportion - I'm sure plenty of people can give examples of when the Red Joker turned up on a :-fate:-fate damage flip - I've done it myself on a few occasions, but that's not unreasonable considering how many games I've played and how many damage flips I've made.

How many times have the 2, 3 or 4 cards been flipped and the result is Weak damage? But people only remember the one time in 5 or 10 or 100 that they didn't flip Weak, but instead flipped the Red Joker

It ain't broke, it don't need fixin'

Cheers

Rob

[Fetid Strumpet]

As was mentioned in the Seamus thread, I'm aware of the phenomenon. It doesn't change the fact that Seamus, whose defining trait it is often said is survivability, dies more than any other master that I play. The main culprit often being most of his wounds being knocked away from a Red Joker flip.

I'm not really in favor of radical changing, I just wish the Red Joker wasn't vastly better than a black joker flip is bad.

[karavak]

I'm in the camp that a RJ on a negative flip should not be as powerful. Just severe I'm ok with but the extra flip tends to tip it.

The way that it works, IMHO, is if you are going against something that is H2W then you don't want to hold the red joker in your hand. You want it back in your deck so you get a chance for it to come up in the negative flips because otherwise, assuming you are getting at least one , it doesn't help you. And at that point you actually don't want a good result because you have better luck getting the RJ with a :-fate than with just a . And to me that logic does seem a bit odd. But as others say, it's the luck of the draw.

[Lucidicide]

My only issue with the Red Joker is that it is so much better than the Black.

+1

Honestly, I don't care if the RJ makes a change. I don't play Malifaux competitively, and it can be really cool when it comes up. That said...

The RJ gets the hate in a way the BJ doesn't. This is for two reasons:

-The way the game works, you are far more likely to get than . As such, the BJ will rarely use it's "override" ability to significantly change an outcome. It is more likely the BJ will just come up on a single card flip (or come up on a where it is already in line with what you're expecting given the negatives). The RJ, on the other hand, is using it's override more often because of the current tendencies toward over .

-The RJ > BJ for the following reasons:

• If you go into an attack, you can expect a few outcomes. Either you will miss, or you will hit. If you hit, it is likely you'll be doing weak or moderate. The BJ, therefore, is a sort of 'extension' of missing. In attempting the action, it is easy to plan for the possibility of doing no damage. You cannot realistically plan for the possibility of taking double severe.
  
• If you assume a base damage profile of 2/3/4, then the breakdown looks like this: 0/2/3/4/4 to 8. This takes a model that would have an average damage of 3 (and is likely to do 2) to doing up to 8. That's a difference of 5 (max). On the other hand, the BJ only changes it by 3.
  
• If you are trying to prevent damage, it is unfortunate to prevent zero. However, this is a swing of 1 point from the very likely prevention of 1. The RJ, however, prevents all. The most damage I can think of as possible from an attack is Leveticus RJing damage into another severe for 24. In this (incredibly unlikely) event, the person would be preventing 24... or 21 more than the "max."
  

The ways that the BJ is more powerful comes down to: overriding even the RJ and being uncheatable (so is more likely to stop an action).

I think that in the feel of Malifaux, people are 100% accepting of the BJ being more powerful than the RJ. The tagline of the game is Bad Things Happen. And they do, and they should, and the BJ is the embodiment of that. As such, trumping the RJ and being uncheatable are acceptable.

But as it stands, the RJ is more powerful than the BJ. It is capable of bringing about much bigger swings and is less able to be planned for (i.e. you can already plan for the possibility of missing a model if you're swinging).

As I said, I'm comfortable with the RJ as it is. But it is better than the BJ. If it were to change, I would change it so that it falls in line with the BJ:

• On damage, the RJ is severe + weak.
  
• On damage prevention/healing, the RJ is 4 (possibly 5 to make it extra special).
  

That's it!

[Wolfgar]

I'm fine as it is. as it stands Hard to Wound 2 causes folk to spam attacks hoping for a lucky break, and I find that incredibly thematic.

[Spiku]

Making the black joker any more effective would be an "anti-fun" mechanic. Given that the average damage in almost every model's situation is going to be weak, and that with multiple flips you are losing cards in your deck which could easily be a pair of 13s with a weak, the turn around for a random spike is limited; and there are occasions where you have a terrible hand, and your opponent has an incredible one. The fact you can do the best you can, take the - - - because you can't beat it by anything better, and maybe get something out is something that helps a system where, some days, you know that you can't do anything just from your hand. That's not something you get with dice games for example.

The black joker specifically denies the ability to cheat over it, and removes suits. Over the 12 weeks of my league I've seen nothing upset players more than when the black joker crops up in an important test, flip, damage action with flip modifiers, or intention to cheat in a suit they need. Flatly defeated. Yet these same people do not seem nearly as heartbroken when you get the red joker at a crucial moment; I believe it is because they feel it is less part of their own action when it comes from an opponents deck.

Anyway, you speak of Fate and bad things happening; surely your opponent flipping the red IS bad things happening to you ;3

[Lucidicide]

Anyway, you speak of Fate and bad things happening; surely your opponent flipping the red IS bad things happening to you ;3

True true -- which is why I'm not a fan of suggestions that make the RJ just a trumped up 13. It should override negative flips, etc. It should be awesome. Because what is awesome for one is terrible for another. Both jokers truly fit this feel, and I love hoping for a flip of either joker. I even find myself occasionally hoping with my opponent for a joker because it's interesting.

Anything that took away that aspect I would strongly oppose. The jokers should be special and really add a lot to the game. In my mind, the Black Joker is really the heart of the jokers. Earlier today I flipped it at the worst time and Leve failed to die as I needed him to... and it was kind of awesome. I laughed about it.

But I did not laugh earlier in the day when someone double severed my aLeveticus (go proxy!). Because it felt over the top. I get it was an amazing strike and all, but isn't that what certain triggers are for (i.e. Headshot, etc)?

Was that Red Joker still awesome? Yes. Would it have been awesome as severe + weak? Yes. It still would have done a ton of damage and made my opponent happy without me rolling my eyes about it.

Like I said, I wouldn't push for it to change. But it's not, in my mind, the equivalent of the Black Joker. And since I have a little crush on the Black Joker, I wouldn't mind feeling a bit better about the Red Joker.

[msgfree]

This issue will never be resolved on the forums for a few reasons.

The main reason being that the crux of the argument stems from the schism of two incompatible ideologies.

Allow me a moment to make a few sweeping generalizations. I recognize that everyone has a slightly different bit of nuance to their opinion but for the most part this is how I see it.

On one hand, there are those who like the Red Joker as is: the arbiter of chance and a potential game swinger. This group likes the element of randomness that the Red Joker provides.

Opposing them is a group who desire to see the chance component minimized as much as possible. They seek to impose order onto the game and desire the ability to measure outcomes with a certain degree of precision.

By removing that extra bit of randomness, you are also removing the game's je ne sais quoi.

I love that at any given point, my best laid plans can go up in smoke due to an ill timed Red or Black Joker flip. There is something to be said for possessing the skill and ability to overcome a bad run of luck and still prevail. Being able to think quickly and adjust when things aren't going your way is a measure of skill. Complaining about Red Joker flips isn't.

Edited February 19, 2012 by msgfree
fixed one typo

[Sandwich]

I'd actually like to pipe in on this conversation and put in my own opinion.

Personally, I'm in the "Fine as it is" boat.

I think it's kinda hilarious when some less-than-impressive model flips the Red Joker and blasts your master for 8 Dg, or Von Schill Slow To Die healing all of his health back, it's just grand.

However, in a professional tournament where real legal tender or physical prizes are being given out, you cannot have something that random equating into victory.

When rewarding a player for playing better than the competetion, you cannot truly reward them when something as random and uncounterable as a lucky Red Joker popping up giving them a win.

The same works for the Black Joker, but to a vastly lesser extent.

I have seen a Tournament go to someone who, had he not flipped the Red Joker in an incredibly random, unpredictable lynch pin situation, would NOT have won at all.

He was outclassed and outplayed for 4 rounds before, out of sheer just "F*ck it, I lost anyway" took a shot at the opponent's master and Red Jokered.

While, in a casual setting, this would stand to say "NEVER GIVE UP GAIZ!"

In a professional setting, it really only means, "Skill doesn't matter if you're lucky!"

I cannot honestly say I agree with any of the changes I've read because they change what is fundamentally the 'Red Joker.'

If there were an option to officially remove Red Jokers altogether from Tournaments, I'd fully support it.

[letsallchant]

i think just in regards to HtW, i would like to be able to choose how many -ve flips i give my opponent. so a model with HtW 2 could make them flip *up to* two extra cards. other than that i dont think its so bad.

[Twisted Metal]

You can choose... its called cheating in a lower card.

[Sybaris]

I am in the "fine as is" camp myself. The odds of getting severe damage is still lower than on a single flip, depending on deck size. I think it allows for dramatic developpment in a game and keeps you on your toes no matter the situation, plus as mentionned above, by cheating in a lower card, you can semi control when a very dangerous (small deck and you think that RJ is in it) :-fate happens.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Sybaris

[msgfree]

However, in a professional tournament where real legal tender or physical prizes are being given out, you cannot have something that random equating into victory.

When rewarding a player for playing better than the competetion, you cannot truly reward them when something as random and uncounterable as a lucky Red Joker popping up giving them a win.

I have seen a Tournament go to someone who, had he not flipped the Red Joker in an incredibly random, unpredictable lynch pin situation, would NOT have won at all.

He was outclassed and outplayed for 4 rounds before, out of sheer just "F*ck it, I lost anyway" took a shot at the opponent's master and Red Jokered.

While, in a casual setting, this would stand to say "NEVER GIVE UP GAIZ!"

In a professional setting, it really only means, "Skill doesn't matter if you're lucky!"

I am not trying to pick on you Sandwich and I mean you no disrespect.

However, this post is a microcosm of these forums; filled with hyperbole and specious claims.

Words have meaning, you can't just throw them around to try and trump up your own point.

First, there are no "Professional Tournaments", unless you are ready to supply evidence that there are people out there who make their living playing Malifaux at conventions. The only people who are professionals with respect to Malifaux are the people at Wyrd.

Lets not aggrandize our little hobby by adding the word "professional" to it. Tournaments are nothing more than a bunch of grown-ups pushing around toy soldiers trying to beat each other so they can brag about it later. I am not trying to demean the tournament scene, I regularly play in tournaments myself. But to imply that peoples livelihoods are at stake due to an unfair game mechanic is ludicrous.

Second, I wasn't there but I have to ask how someone who was "outclassed and outplayed" for FOUR rounds able to win a tournament off of one flip? Wouldn't that person have been at the last table and hence unable to effect the top standings of the tournament?

Please people, lets quit throwing around all the hyperbole on these forums. It gets us no where.

[nilus]

Those of us who have been here since the beginning remember short time when the Red joker did not trump everything in a negative flip. I really think this is the only change I would like to see back. It would fix the HTW issue. I understand why it was changed but personally I always preferred it the other way.

I think the rest of the mechanics for black and red joker are fine. There should be a chance of extreme success and failure in the game. I understand the frustration with a competitive player setting a up perfect combo only to have the black joker thwart it, but without risk the game would be boring. There needs to be that ever presence small chance of total failure.