Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Poltron]

Just to chip in: I think we all understand that the probability shouldn't change over an infinity of play. Same deck, same cards, same chance for that first flip. In college I've programmed a infinite coin flip that always went 50/50 Head/Tail over the course of 18+ earth's lifespan. However, that coin flip could be Head for 10K years before switching to Tail. If I die before I see the Tail's flip, I'll think it's 100% Head instead of 50/50.

For the card's mecanic: Turn 2, I flip a Red joker on Initiative. I can guess that my opponent will/should be more careless turn 2, knowing that I don't have it in hand/deck anymore. It's not the same 20%/80% that I had, for that turn only mind you. Of course after the turn 3' shuffle, we kind of reset those same probabilities to what they were. (minus what's in our hand of course)

Same for H2W2, if near the end of the turn, couple of important activations left (always the best for last right?), you saw me flip before all my 10+ on a attempt to wound and a weak card always popped to mess with them, you can feel safer about those last actions. You'll know, for example that your 13 will go through no matter what against similar stats, because you saw my big cards go through the drain.

So not that much alien, maybe more closer to earth in fact.

Oh and the Red joker wasn't used as part of the Joker's debate hehe!

[Math Mathonwy]

Yeah ok, you guys win.

Bye.

[Buhallin]

I see two problems here. The first is that you're trying to treat the card flips as independent events, rather than a draw without replacement problem. While the reshuffle may produce a theoretically infinite pool, in practice it is not. Many turns work they way through with no reshuffling at all, and at the very least there is a finite number of cards which will be drawn from the deck in a turn. Using the 10 card 8/2 example, I might ask "What are the chances there are no good cards left in the deck after two draws compared to four draws?" These are different values, although I haven't bothered to actually run the numbers. That's the impact on future performance.

And it matters, because you're focusing entirely on the card distribution when there's more to it than that. The mechanic means that not every card will be productive when it comes up. If you run a deck with straight flip, every card gets "used". If you run them in pairs with a each time, most of the "good" cards are overwhelmed and won't be used. The overall effectiveness of the deck goes down. This is the effect I was trying to explain earlier, and it took me a bit to square it with your point on the distribution.

You're right about the overall distribution, but for that overall distribution to matter you have to put an unrealistic framework on the problem.

[Malovane]

I don't care about the distribution though. I care about the probability of what the next card will be. I know what's come up already. I know what's in my hand. I can figure out what cards remain in my deck. I'm unconcerned with the order that said cards will appear. I am deeply concerned with the probability that said cards will appear.

If 2 cards in 10 are good. In general, I'd classify good as a severe. "Good" is certainly going to depend on the situation and what you are trying to do. Anyway, so with 2 in 10 cards being severe, the probability that the next card flipped being a severe is 20%. I flip a card, I don't loose .2 or .8 of a card, I loose 1 full card. Good or bad, my probability changes to either 1 severe in 9 remaining or 2 severe in 9 remaining. This is the reality of my situation turning a given turn. I don't care about the order at all. Again, I say we're at an impasse looking at the situation in very different views that aren't going to change. You're looking at trends I'm looking at 1 immediate case. You're looking at the average result of 2 dice trending to 7 over time. I'm looking for the % chance to hit 7 on my next roll. Probably a poor comparison, but oh well. In general, I'll be looking at the odds of flipping a 10+ or flipping a particular suit or a combination of them - 10+ of crows. Those odds are calculable and meaningful to me on a given flip. The average distribution, in general, is not meaningful to me as a player for a given flip, or at least not as meaningful as those immediate probabilities. I'm not debating what flipping cards does to the distribution. I'm simply saying I don't find that information useful.

Regardless, I don't find further discussion of the matter or the math productive to this thread. We are clearly at an impasse, and I'll leave it at that.

[Boscotopia]

An extremely simple task for you: if you have a deck of 10 cards with two (20%) good ones and eight (80%) bad ones and you flip one card and repeat this one million times (flipping one card always from a fresh deck of ten). What is the average distribution of the nine card deck? Please, consider this with an open mind and do the math (it's very, very simple).

Work and data sets? The "dataset" is the deck. And "work" is very simple statistical analysis.

So, you do the work. Show us the work. Don't tell other people to do your work for you. You claim you are correct, show the work. If you don't want to, then get over it and stop talking about your statistics. That is simple.

[CRC]

Minimizing the effects of chance is a good strategy in basically every minis game I know of. I can't imagine how that would frustrate people.

I hear that a lot, but it's not quite true. When you're ahead, minimizing chance is a good thing. When you're behind it's a bad thing. When behind, you want to maximize chance.

The thing is, in most miniature games, you make this kind of decision at list-build time. At that time you have to assume you're going to be ahead, because if you're not, you're not going to win the tournament.

Malifaux is unusual in that list building, while important, is not as critical as most miniature games. I've played many a game of 40k that was decided when deployment was finished. That is vastly more rare in this game.

In short, I like having significant and variable randomness in the game, so that mid-game, the winning player can play to minimize it and the losing player can play for the gamble, because that keeps the game interesting longer.

[Q'iq'el]

Besides it is one thing to minimize the influence of chance as a strategic choice, in an inherently random system, and it is completely different think to try to change the rules to eliminate random swings.

In a way the skill in minimizing the damaging influence of random effects requires these random effects to be part of the game - otherwise it would be entirely irrelevant.

[Omenbringer]

I hear that a lot, but it's not quite true. When you're ahead, minimizing chance is a good thing. When you're behind it's a bad thing. When behind, you want to maximize chance.

The Gremlin Gunline Mindset where it isn't about quality of hit but quantity.

[CRC]

So, you do the work. Show us the work. Don't tell other people to do your work for you. You claim you are correct, show the work. If you don't want to, then get over it and stop talking about your statistics. That is simple.

There's no need for him to show his work. He's clearly right. The point was for you to do the exercise in the hope that you might realise that.

[Math Mathonwy]

I hear that a lot, but it's not quite true. When you're ahead, minimizing chance is a good thing. When you're behind it's a bad thing. When behind, you want to maximize chance.

The idea also contains the unspoken part that you are a better player than your opponent

There is also the idea that if you don't throw dice (or flip cards), you can't fail due to random chance, which is naturally true.

But I do agree with you that when you're behind, taking risks can lead to a better result, surely, and in a "nothing to lose" situation you should take even the most outrageous risks if there is a chance of you pulling out ahead.

Malifaux is unusual in that list building, while important, is not as critical as most miniature games. I've played many a game of 40k that was decided when deployment was finished. That is vastly more rare in this game.

I think that it is critical, but it is easier since you can tailor the list to the scenario. I mean, if you were to make bad choices, it would arguably be even a bigger catastrophe than in 40k, but you can avoid taking a super slow force for a strategy that needs speed, for example. So yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you.

In short, I like having significant and variable randomness in the game, so that mid-game, the winning player can play to minimize it and the losing player can play for the gamble, because that keeps the game interesting longer.

I'm not opposed to randomness! I wouldn't play this game if it didn't have a significant random component. I find the Red Joker damage on negative flips too big a swing for me personally, but I readily admit that it is a matter of taste and liking it is not "objectively wrong" or anything.

[ICleadpeople]

The biggest thing I've had an issue with is some of the spells you can use on your own models that seem to be intended for use on enemy models. i.e. Sonnia Criid uses her spell to turn a Witchling stalker with 1 wound left into another stalker at full wounds.

I use "issue" very litely, it just seems a little wonky. I think an enemy model clarification on a few things would clean up the game alot.

[Math Mathonwy]

The biggest thing I've had an issue with is some of the spells you can use on your own models that seem to be intended for use on enemy models. i.e. Sonnia Criid uses her spell to turn a Witchling stalker with 1 wound left into another stalker at full wounds.

I use "issue" very litely, it just seems a little wonky. I think an enemy model clarification on a few things would clean up the game alot.

That's a bit of a theme in Malifaux, though. Doing nasty stuff to one's underlings, that is - see draining the souls of your own.

Aside from that, I feel the need to congratulate you on most awesome name - made me laugh

[Cats Laughing]

Thats fine, but you are still talking about the CHANCE TO HIT... I don't care about that. What I am talking about is that if this DOES occur, it is highly likely that a model DIES. So, in your scenario, with all that defense Caine has set up. How happy would people be that if that when that lucky roll came he is not only hit, but the damage done to him is maxed out and then an additional damage roll is added?

In the scenario I posted, by not boosting the attack roll you have usually saved resources and can then boost the damage rolls. There are a good number of weapons in Warmachine that will kill Caine on a boosted damage roll if they hit. In that way, it's a pretty similar scenario.

PS: Yes, it's cornercase. However, since no warjack in the game is RAT 10 (most are RAT 4-6), you can actually drop the wall (and possibly another DEF bonus) out of the equation and have effectively the same result, where boosting the attack roll leads to lower odds to hit. So you're better off fishing for a box cars roll on the to hit and saving your boost for the damage roll and the high change of rolling enough damage to kill.

I do admit that the H2W2 situation seems like it can come up more often, but that is partially a function of Warmachine/Hordes having 120+ Warcasters/Warlocks, of which only 2 are "Caine" while Malifaux has only 21(?) Master/Henchmen, of which 1 is Seamus. The other reason is that the Red Joker is always somewhere in the deck of 54 cards, while there are some people who will never roll a pair of sixes on a 2d6 in their life. On the flip side, I've managed to roll 5 box car results in a row in one particular game, and seen people do more than that on other occasions.

It's not the same, but it is a similar situation of "better and worse" being flipped due to somewhat wonky rules. The H2W2 situation seems more likely to occur, and therefore seems worse. That perception is a reason I'm not totally against minor changes to the Red Joker interaction, but I'm also not really in the camp pushing for any changes, since I still find this to be the one game where I have as much fun losing as I do winning or tying a game...

Anyway, carry on

[Boscotopia]

Now, I'm not saying that as an attack against you, so please don't take it as such, but how much statistics education do you have? I have... a lot. Working on a PhD in an engineering field tends to do that, really. So with that in mind, I'm saying that I'm rather convinced that I'm right in this case. If you wish to argue this further, I can start proving this mathematically, but I'm not sure that it is worth the effort unless you understand that proof and unless you are absolutely convinced that you are right and I am wrong.

.

You posted this............ so, please show your work.

[Math Mathonwy]

You posted this............ so, please show your work.

What the hell dude? What work? My publications? Or the proof by example I already offered? You want a proper induction or something? If you're unable to do it after my example, I'm rather sure that me doing it for you won't mean a damn thing to you. So yeah, I won't spend the fifteen minutes it would take to write it down for you, because why the hell should I? You have certainly not earned my goodwill here.

I'm not going to take you through a statistics 101 - if you are not familiar with the concepts of distribution and how the probabilities work without a priori information on the order of the deck, then do some learning. I'm tired of trying to explain this thing - I've already done it in several different ways and you have no interest to put any effort forward in understanding what I'm saying - it's your loss. You keep believing that flipping lots of cards somehow fundamentally affects the distribution differently from flipping a few cards when there are only a few good cards in the deck - I really, really don't care.

So yeah, as already said, you win. Go celebrate.

[Gruesome]

So...

A very funny way to bring my models to our new game store my first time as Henchman...

We are setting up our models, putting a few to the side in case anyone has questions, etc.

My son and I decide to start a 25SS game.

Coarchon, a member here steps over and introduces himself and we get to talking while proceeding with the game. Tekdekay arrives with his son and we sit around talking while my Seamus crew faces my son's Perdita(Smell-dita Dumb-tega as I now call her).

We keep talking while the game proceeds with him occasionally dropping non-stop torrents of mask cards for Nino to mow down belles.

Seamus occasionally props them back up, biding his time while they get a few lures off.

When I think the time is right, Molly springs out, casts lure back towards Seamus (She copied it from a belle earlier) and drags Seamus into the midst of three of his crew,

He promptly Manifests and makes himself even MORE terrifying. Nino dies and aSeamus is in Melee with Perdita and Francisco at the end of the turn. (Santiago died the turn before)

He gets initiative and companions them both. Perdita passes her terrifying and tries to beat through his armor, doing minimal damage.

He is still at 8 wounds and feeling good. Francisco activates passes his terrifying and misses first attack. BARELY hits second attack and is at a :-fate damage flip.

And promptly flips the red joker for a double severe bringing me immediately to 1 wound because of Hard to Kill. (Dead otherwise)

Then proceeds to kill aSeamus with his melee expert action and we called the game shortly thereafter as the whole game hinged upon aSeamus, you know, not dying.

I will not say that we did not have fun playing as we always do, but I will say that I would have won if he had not flipped the red joker.

I am not bothering to attempt to convince anyone to change their minds because it does not seem possible.

I'd just say that however unlikely that was to happen, it is now the second time in the last 5 games that my master has been blown off the board by the red joker and this time happened to be in a room full of people not familiar with the game that hopefully did not notice and think that Malifaux is that "lucky card-flip game".

[nerdelemental]

The Red Joker....

See, it's gotten so clear lately that there are so many issues that are all about perspective. And I do not intend or imply anything other than positive sincerity in my response: Gruesome, I read that example and before getting to your last paragraph my reaction was one of "Oh! That's awesome! You can never count your chickens in Malifaux. There's always the Jokers that mess up a day's plans," and I'm smiling thinking of the times it's happened to me on both sides of the table. Then I got to your last paragraph and realized you hated it. While I thought that was a huge part of the joy of the game.

I've even found myself losing in a Duel and cheat my side lower - as low as I could - thinking, "He's all but got me. If I can get him to draw more cards, even on a positive flip, just maybe a Black Joker will pop out."

I think this Joker business is an issue for some people that really like to control the odds and make tight, predictable decisions. The Jokers really tick them off. But when you have players that appreciate a strange and unexpected monkey-wrench (I guess I'm one) then the Jokers seem totally fine.

Red Joker on a negative flip and people call foul. That perplexes me because I'm such a fluff guy. Sometimes, right out of the fluff, everything seems hellbent against you and then Fate (cap on purpose) steps in and offers you a Red when all hope seemed lost. Could Rasputina have survived against December if certain cards didn't go perfectly for her? Just saying. I often write with game mechanics in mind and I had a whole lot of thought thinking of how she interacts with the Black Joker and what it must have looked like for a Red to show up exactly when she needed it.

This is not to say we cannot and should not continue debating how the Jokers work - I'm fine with that. But perception seems a very appropriate word to keep in mind this last week when all sorts of gross stuff seemed thrown at the Wyrd fan when we didn't have any idea anything was going to get thrown into the fan. Hell, we've been super excited about the game recently and thought the anticipation would be high right now. Clearly, something's high, but its not anticipation.

[Gruesome]

I like your post.

When you mention your memories about it in a positive way, I know that my son just added one himself.

In fact, we went to friends house last night and had 3 families playing games and my son was even enjoying saying stuff like, "Are you sure you want to risk losing to me AGAIN today, dad?" -- etc...

And on the car ride home we were trying to give my wife some grief by saying that my son was going to get a mohawk. Mind you, we were saying this to bug my wife, but my son turned on me and literally said, "Yeah! A mohawk, and I can dye it red, you know dad, like the blood of Seamus that was all over the board today!"

Turncoat!

Anyway, I just want to clearly state my view on Red Joker, analogies aside:

1. I don't hate the red Joker.

2. Losing to my son is always a secret happy event for me.

3. I felt like I put myself into a winning situation... with SEAMUS!

4. In the privacy of my home, Red Jokers are what they are. When trying to show the game to new people or passers-by, I get concerned when that "unlikely" event puts a perception that there is more luck in the game than there is since it happened to be at that "one crucial moment".

5. I do not cry foul of the Red Joker because it changes a negative into a positive. It changes a negative into a positive++ made all the more frequent because of my faction of choice's primary defensive mechanism, Hard to Wound.

6. Were the roles reversed in the above game, its not how I'd have wanted to have beaten my son.

As I said, and I want to stress this, we had FUN. What would have been me grinding out a win by keeping Seamus in cover and waiting for the right moment to manifest and just doing the Terrifying lockdown turned into something that we all actually laughed about.

But, were this a competition and he not my son, etc. I would completely understand why there would be a large desire to have this changed.

Many of the same people that I agree with on red joker are actually those that I disagree most with on the "kill your own master for scheme/strat denial" threads.

[nerdelemental]

I appreciate your follow-up. I understand that perception and your fear of how new players might perceive it. As one that's done a considerable amount of demoing and teaching the game, I've never given it much thought (see my former post - that just seems like a natural part of the game to me). But, perhaps its my language that matches my thought processes. Here's a common way of talking about it from me:

"[within the discussion of dice-cards and number generation] ... It's still a random event with the cards. You flip a card and the value is added to your stat [...] but there are several ways you can control the outcome. Your hand is probably the most vital resource in the game and you use it both positively and negatively. Knowing those key interactions in a turn is something you come to understand after just a few games and you hold your cards for those moments. [discuss how even cheating a lower value for correct suit when appropriate]. Then there's Soulstones for the models that matter most....but there's always a chance for the game to help you or hit you hard when you're not expecting it. The Jokers. They mess up every plan or make an unlikely success something of an extreme phenomenon. You can never truly control every outcome because of them and when I'm playing, it's the best thing I can hope for to draw either one into my hand so I'll at least know where it is. Every once in a while, you'll even have both in your hand and you'll feel on top of the world. Still, you don't know where your opponent's are...."

It's just part of my schtick because I like this unpredictability so much.

Clearly, others do not. I'm not against them, and try to understand their point, but I have NO problem with how the Jokers work right now. Red on a Negative or Black on a Positive. That's just Fate. It's such an integral part of the game. Hell, even "Wyrd" name origins should answer some of these issues. It's been there since the beginning.

Even if we made major changes to the Jokers, I worry that we'd please the other half while irritating the side that appreciates them now. We're discussing it. But I bet by the time we work it out it'll be too late and whole countries of players will have rage quit over it.

But it's on our discussion plate, regardless.

[dgraz]

Even if we made major changes to the Jokers, I worry that we'd please the other half while irritating the side that appreciates them now. We're discussing it. But I bet by the time we work it out it'll be too late and whole countries of players will have rage quit over it.

But it's on our discussion plate, regardless.

Just change it right now. If the people that like it have a fit....then just change it back......of course then the original haters will be angry again.....I guess you would have to change it again.....but then the others would be upset......oh my.

[nerdelemental]

Seems like the Hard to Wound bit is the culprit. I get that. If I'm playing Res and I'm counting on the Hard to Wound part (it's a key element of their game), then the Red will show every once in a while and mess with you. Doesn't it equally pop the Black, though? And limit the opponent's ability to drop cards for the damage flip, including the Red he's holding in his hand? I know that's been my experience: I'm holding the Red and I always like to drop that on a damage flip, but against Res, it typically means I cannot. And, typically against Res, usually, no matter how good my attack is I'm still flipping at Negative which means the damage is usually lower than I want it to be and I cannot fix it at all. But, yeah, a Red can still show up.

Would so many concerns be quelled if, instead of focusing on the Red, we focused on a revision of Hard to Wound language? I'm not trying to open yet another can of worms, but I wonder how many Res players are mad, and angry about their "weak faction" and about the Red Joker, when it's just that one dumb ability that might be causing all the hullabaloo...

[Gruesome]

I can't speak to why others think Rezzers are or are not weaker. I sort of don't care as I saw what all that talk spiraled to. I love my Rezzers and will play them forever.

I can say that I do not remember ever seeing a black joker cuddle a red on damage flips. Now, would it stick out in my mind like only the red joker? Maybe not.

But I know that once I have the black joker, he never leaves my hand unless its near enough the end where I think I am unlikely to see him shuffled back into my deck to hurt me and I know there are other players that hang onto it, too.

In the situation I described yesterday, aSeamus does not even have Hard to Wound, we had just tied on the attack/defense flip so he happened to be at :-fate

I thought of one other thing about yesterday that I find interesting. As mentioned, we played Malifaux at the gamestore in the day and then board games and such with friends and family last night. (It was a good day )

One of the games we played was called "Bang!"

Not to get into details, but at the end of the game is was a sheriff vs. an outlaw with the Outlaw in the lead. There are 8 people standing around watching the final fight to see who wins and the sheriff is about to die when she pulls the TWO CARDS that could reverse the tables and end the game. Everyone cheered and thought it was fun.

That lucky flip in that simple card game was enjoyable and I would never want to remove that lucky possibility...

...from the $20 card game that takes 5 minutes to teach to non-gamers.

But when you are a tournament player that has invested $1000+ in a game, devoted countless hours to theory, practice and play-testing, I think that a convincing argument could be made that something so game changing is perhaps not desirable as a possibility.

(Not describing myself, I have spent the money, but I am not a "tournament player", I am more of a "tournament attender" )

I liked your description above of how you explain fate and such and the impact of jokers... It does frame it very fluffy and honestly makes me appreciate the mechanic more. As I am not someone that overly worries about tournament results, I think that explanation is sufficient for me to not concern myself any longer. Others can speak for themselves if they feel the need.

Thanks!

Edited July 8, 2012 by Gruesome

[dgraz]

perhaps create a poll for Rezzer players?

Do you think the RJ on damage flip ruins the game for the Rezzers? Yes or No.

It's really just one guy....the master I see mentioned most is Seamus. $$I've played against Seamus several dozen times and I don't remember ever killing him with the dreaded RJ vs HTW problem......and I've probably only actually killed him a handful of times.$$

Instead of a rewrite to HTW, maybe just Seamus needs something like "RJ's don't get their extra flip against Seamus".

Personally I don't think it should be changed at all. I believe it is blown all out of proportion. All this craziness for something that's going to happen once in a thousand (just throwing that out.....I failed at math)........the odds that you actually flip that RJ at the proper time, that it's a model with a high enough damage track to make the kill, and that the 2nd card flipped is high.........those things all combined is what people are complaining about.........seems unlikely to me.

[fishtank]

How about simply "when flipped on a negative DAMAGE flip, the red joker counts as Severe damage It does not trump other cards flipped."

Just make Damage flips a special case for the joker rule.

[Ratty]

OK I'll just put this up her and let you discuss.

As a Reser player you notice that 1 game in maybe 15 Where your opponent flips a Red Joker on your Hard to Wound 2 flip.

As someone that plays against Resers you notice that 14 games in 15, you end up with a couple of 11+ or maybe a Red Joker in your hand you just can't use to cheat Damage Flips, because it's nigh on impossible to get a straight flip to cheat them in on.

Overall which has more effect on the game. Hard to Wounds making it slightly more likely to flip a Red Joker, or Hard to Wound totally shutting down your opponents ability to cheat on Damage Flips.