Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Calmdown]

Perdita was my next 'project' choice to play and show how good she was - Jo was going to paint me one in animal print cos she has one in a box But :effort:

[magicpockets]

^^ I toyed with it, but then decided I'd go Viks, Raspy or Nico next. Then I made the best choice and stopped playing for a while

[dgraz]

I do agree with Perdita being under-appreciated. I stomped a Colette crew with her just last night.

[Calmdown]

^^ I toyed with it, but then decided I'd go Viks, Raspy or Nico next. Then I made the best choice and stopped playing for a while

I think stopping was definitely the best choice right now. Too much headspace being spent on thinking about thinks that will never happen.

MTG hoooo

[magicpockets]

Might look at MTG, but with the new 40K rules coming out....

[Silas Cordell]

Alright, I admit to only having read the first 6 pages, so I might have missed this, but I have a question regarding the issues (real or perceived) with the Jokers, and I'm interested in thoughts from the competitive mindset (Nix, Calmdown, etc).

I have seen many, many threads regarding how the jokers are an issue, but aren't they still better than dice? Each Joker is a 1/54 chance (to start, I know they change), while rolling a 1 or 6 (usually auto-fail/succeed in other games) is a 1/6 chance. In Warmachine and Hordes, 2d6 is the standard, but even then, the odds of auto-fail/success is 1/36.

I realize that odds work differently due to the card mechanic, but are they really so far off that they are more of an issue than the dice in other games? I have never seen anyone complain about snakes auto-missing in Warmachine to the extent that they wanted the rule changed (maybe I missed it, though).

[Math Mathonwy]

Alright, I admit to only having read the first 6 pages, so I might have missed this, but I have a question regarding the issues (real or perceived) with the Jokers, and I'm interested in thoughts from the competitive mindset (Nix, Calmdown, etc).

I have seen many, many threads regarding how the jokers are an issue, but aren't they still better than dice? Each Joker is a 1/54 chance (to start, I know they change), while rolling a 1 or 6 (usually auto-fail/succeed in other games) is a 1/6 chance. In Warmachine and Hordes, 2d6 is the standard, but even then, the odds of auto-fail/success is 1/36.

I realize that odds work differently due to the card mechanic, but are they really so far off that they are more of an issue than the dice in other games? I have never seen anyone complain about snakes auto-missing in Warmachine to the extent that they wanted the rule changed (maybe I missed it, though).

The chance of getting a joker doesn't really enter into but rather the effect. Red Joker on damage does an ungodly amount of damage that can kill even a Master from full health on some models.

Also, the most obnoxious tactic is to aim for as many as possible against a Hard to Wound target thus flipping over a lot of cards and if one of them is the Red Joker - boom. Turns Seamus's Hard to Wound 2 into a bit of a liablity really, which I doubt was the designer intent.

I would like to see Red Joker do just Severe damage when coming up on flips. Would still be very powerful since apparently a lot of people find it awesome but wouldn't utterly wreck games when a random throwaway hit kills a Master or a 11SS model or whatever.

Personally, I find it annoying no matter whether I'm on the giving or the receiving end when a match is decided by such a random occurrence - no fun in that for me. It can rob me of victory either way, since it isn't something that is "earned".

[Soundwave]

Personally, I find it annoying no matter whether I'm on the giving or the receiving end when a match is decided by such a random occurrence - no fun in that for me. It can rob me of victory either way, since it isn't something that is "earned".

that's sort of interesting, because at our club we find it a hilarious coincidence.

[Calmdown]

Alright, I admit to only having read the first 6 pages, so I might have missed this, but I have a question regarding the issues (real or perceived) with the Jokers, and I'm interested in thoughts from the competitive mindset (Nix, Calmdown, etc).

I have seen many, many threads regarding how the jokers are an issue, but aren't they still better than dice? Each Joker is a 1/54 chance (to start, I know they change), while rolling a 1 or 6 (usually auto-fail/succeed in other games) is a 1/6 chance. In Warmachine and Hordes, 2d6 is the standard, but even then, the odds of auto-fail/success is 1/36.

I realize that odds work differently due to the card mechanic, but are they really so far off that they are more of an issue than the dice in other games? I have never seen anyone complain about snakes auto-missing in Warmachine to the extent that they wanted the rule changed (maybe I missed it, though).

Basically its not because 'oh, something big happened' that makes the Red Joker an issue. It's the sheer magnitude of the event that's an issue.

It doesn't matter that the chances are low, because in a competitive or tight game, the Red Joker can and often will be a game ender. For example taking out very large models in one swing that would have ordinarily never died.

I'll give you the ultimate reall ife example (which, btw, happened long after I'd been arguing that jokers need fixing but cemented it for me!)

Magicpockets and I are playing the final of the UK masters. It's my Dreamer (precuddle) vs Hamelin and the strategy is Claim Jump. Now, against Pockets, I know I have basically no chance of winning this unless I play time very intelligently and then drop Chompy on the Claim marker for a terror bomb, and I don't play for time. So, my only option is therefore to kill Hamelin (this wouldn't be the only option against many Hamelin players, but Pockets doesn't make mistakes with Hamelin so I know this is my one option). I set up the board, and go for the jugular. I start by taking out his Stolen and then drop Chompy on Hamelin. Both of us have a full SS pool so it's going to be very hard, and I know I could lose, but I try it anyway. On one of my attacks, after I've already done some damage, I flip well, he cheats and stones a low number, so I cheat up and stone a high number then cheat in a Severe with a Flay trigger. I'm about to hit him for 8. We both know that if I hit him for a number this big, he's dead. So he stones damage prevention. He flips a Red Joker. My gambit was well set up, I played the turn really well in a quite difficult situation, and I pulled it off - except that a random flip of a card prevented 8 damage. That basically ended the game right there and then.

That, for me, is a prime example of why the Red Joker as it stands is too powerful. The ability to completely change a game on the flip of one card, in a way that is completely and totally out of the hands of the player, is not a good mechanic. Luck is fine, every game we play is based on luck, but that level of luck isn't really desirable.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Calmdown

[nix]

Alright, I admit to only having read the first 6 pages, so I might have missed this, but I have a question regarding the issues (real or perceived) with the Jokers, and I'm interested in thoughts from the competitive mindset (Nix, Calmdown, etc).

I have seen many, many threads regarding how the jokers are an issue, but aren't they still better than dice? Each Joker is a 1/54 chance (to start, I know they change), while rolling a 1 or 6 (usually auto-fail/succeed in other games) is a 1/6 chance. In Warmachine and Hordes, 2d6 is the standard, but even then, the odds of auto-fail/success is 1/36.

I realize that odds work differently due to the card mechanic, but are they really so far off that they are more of an issue than the dice in other games? I have never seen anyone complain about snakes auto-missing in Warmachine to the extent that they wanted the rule changed (maybe I missed it, though).

I have no issue with the Jokers and like the effect they have on the game. Overall, they can provide a massive swing to the game, for good or ill. This gives an interesting mechanic along with adding some nice flavor and theme.

[LupusFerreus]

I have no issue with the Jokers and like the effect they have on the game. Overall, they can provide a massive swing to the game, for good or ill. This gives an interesting mechanic along with adding some nice flavor and theme.

Indeed, I feel like I should film a video where I cry under a sheet screaming "LEAVE THE JOKERS ALOOOOOOONE!"

[Gruesome]

I am cool with both sides of the argument. I think that a small chance of the reverse outcome is interesting.

I feel like I have recently better understood the point of the people that want the change.

Its not that they don't think there should be a small chance of something random like a miss happening, or a hit when you did not expect it, its all about the degree.

Examples from Warmachine that I saw were lacking... Snake eyes always missing or boxcars always hitting is not the same. How much of a damage change are we talking about? Even an extra column of damage that takes out a weapon system on a warjack is not the same as:

I have done everything I can to defend myself and gotten you on a triple minus flip and you flip red joker.... Its not that it does damage when it might not have, or a little more... Its that it could take my master from full wounds to dead instantly.

And the CHANCES of that happening were not equal on any given attack, they were INCREASED because I have lots of defense or Hard To Wound 2, etc... Things that are supposed to make me harder to wound increase the chance of getting one-shot off the board?

I can see where people have issues.

Personally, I do not care and think its funny when it happens, but not so much so that I would argue for it to stay as it is either.

If anything, I would simply say that what I dislike most about the debate is that it seems to take over EVERY DISCUSSION.

I enjoyed much discussion in this thread, but one suggestion in the entire spreadsheet that is not even unique to a faction dominates so many of the posts... Bleh...

[Silas Cordell]

Of all the points, I do see how the Red Joker damage on negative twists can be annoying, because of the changes to the odds, and the sheer amount of potential damage involved.

@Calmdown: I understand your point, but I still don't see the difference the cards and dice in your example. Beyond the lost resources (a card and a soulstone), red joker on damage prevention is the same as black joker on the attack, which is the same as rolling snakes. I completely understand the frustration of losing to fate at a critical moment, I am trying to understand what makes this different than any other game (beyond the red joker for damage).

[Lungboy]

Maybe change the damage prevention flip to be the same as the damage flip, so red joker prevents the same as severe plus a second flip, rather than preventing everything. On a negative flip, maybe have the red joker automaticaly do severe + weak, rather than the full second flip that you get on a straight or positive flip.

I should say i'm new to this game, but i don't see a problem with the jokers. The vagaries of fate are the entire point of the game, so playing with the jokers in mind seems to me to be essential.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Lungboy

[Gruesome]

red joker on damage prevention is the same as black joker on the attack, which is the same as rolling snakes.

+1

AND, it cost a soulstone for the prevention flip itself, so hardly in the same class as Red Joker on damage flip.

EDIT: Ack! I am posting about jokers... I am out!

[nilus]

I have long held that the Red joker should not work on a Negative flip, I really think that is my one issue with it. The other random ways it can come up I am fine with but I think on negative fate it should count as the highest card(and this be ignored).

That being said the way it works now doesn't drive me away from the game. I have had games swing against me because of it and games that swing back to me because of it. I can understand why someone like Calmdown has a problem with it though. For me one game is as fun as important as the next. I can play to win and I like winning but I am not a super competitive player

When you get to a point like the last game in the UK finals I can see where a random card could ruin the skill of the game.

Maybe the approach should be different though. Instead of changing how the jokers work maybe a new options for use soul stone can be introduced that allows a player to spend a stone to replace a joker(or change it).

[Csonti]

When you get to a point like the last game in the UK finals I can see where a random card could ruin the skill of the game.

This is strange because I don't see any problem at all in Calmdown's example. Games between even strenght players should be decided by luck and nothing else. Strong players take (almost) the best crews they can have, make (almost) the best decisions in the game etc. So the only REAL difference must be the luck factor. Which is just fine in a wargame. (Yes, play Chess or Go if you don't like luck.)

It's very strange that Calmdown find it very frustrating that his opponent fliped an RJ on prevention after he won the duel with SS flips (that's a bargain so he was actually LUCKY there, and yes, no BJ surfaced, and yes he got the trigger etc.), made a decent amount of damage (again, no BJ surfaced) and then his opponent saved the day with an RJ. Sh.t happens, but the result would be the same in case he simple lost the attacking duel, which is roughly a simple coin flip between SS user models.

Yes, sometimes you lose a close game on an unlucky flip. And so it should be. If you are much better than your opponent you can't lose the game on a single flip. If you do, you are doing it wrong.

[Judgeman]

Just to chime in with the "Jokers are fine" group, I feel that the mechanic works fine and makes the game that more interesting for me to play. I understand how tournament players would feel if the game was decided by a single card during a single flip, but that to me is what makes the games exciting.

Anytime you deal with cards in this manner, it's all luck. The luck of the draw for your hand, the luck of the initial flip, the luck of what your opponent flips. Having those two cards in the deck that can change the flow of the entire game in a single flip is what Malifaux is all about.

[Fetid Strumpet]

As a resser player I like the mechanic, but I absolutely loath the fact that my only real defensive ability is not quite an advantage all the time and often results in killing said model faster.

[Lungboy]

Is it really often? The chance of flipping an extra weak card is far higher than flipping the red joker.

[Q'iq'el]

This is strange because I don't see any problem at all in Calmdown's example. Games between even strenght players should be decided by luck and nothing else. Strong players take (almost) the best crews they can have, make (almost) the best decisions in the game etc. So the only REAL difference must be the luck factor. Which is just fine in a wargame. (Yes, play Chess or Go if you don't like luck.)

I agree, but I think there is even more to that.

If someone (not just Calmdown in this example, but in general) plays the way the entire match resolves around single attack, if he puts everything into that one effort and has no contingency plan for Red Joker, because he assumes the probabilities are low enough to risk it, then it amounts to trying to win the game through a gamble, not skill.

Now if someone is making a gamble, why complain about random result?

And it is completely untrue that removing random factor increases how the skill factors into the result. It just changes the skills needed. The less random the game is, the more list building and planning and practice matter (and they matter enough in Malifaux already - Hiring is one of the most important steps of the game). The more random it becomes, the more you are forced to adapt, improvise, change plans on the spot and fight against the odds. The later abilities may amount to a not-fun game to some, but so can the former. It is all skills.

---------- Post added at 08:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

Is it really often? The chance of flipping an extra weak card is far higher than flipping the red joker.

Exactly. Red Joker issue is blown FAAAR out of proportion. It isn't about making the game better, it is ideological campaign. I'm starting to think the last year we had an influx of players who didn't like random charges in Warhammer Fantasy and vowed to fight all things random till their last breath.

Technically speaking Red Joker will pop up every game, sometimes even every turn. Most of the time, it will pop up on flips where it is not all that important - from the initiative flips to to-hit flips where it is merely a 14 of any suits (so it can be cheated against anyway).

Where it really matter is damage flip, but even then the chances are low and the Joker must still be in the pool. If it is in Control Hand, the player has to spent resources to ensure positive flip - something the opponent can see through and counter.

Then take into consideration how few matches really pivoted just around that single flip? Most often the games would be lost anyway or were so even many other flip results could've caused the loss anyway.

I suppose there is a poorly designed master or two and gambling everything on attacks against them pays off. This is not a case for most crews though - I'd rather see some fixes to the problematic crews than the change in fundamental mechanics of the game.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[PierceSternum]

Is it really often? The chance of flipping an extra weak card is far higher than flipping the red joker.

Someone on a flip because they barely hit you.

They are flipping 2 cards, chances are decent they might get a weak.

You are hard to wound 2 (And your model's cost is reflective of that "benefit") and now you are far more likely to get the same weak...

But also 3 times more likely to flip a red joker.

I could almost see if it were the case that Red Joker only did severe, but when on a NEGATIVE flip, it just seems nuts that on top of everything else that they get an additional card flip of damage.

Again, this isn't about that small chance that you hit when you were not supposed to, or that you did more damage than you were likely too. Its suddenly likely killing a model that did everything possible in the game to be in the better position, which seems very strange.

I'd be ok with it, I guess, if you simply lost the extra card of damage when you are on a negative flip.

There is little reason you ever want someone flipping 4 cards the way it is now. Three cards is very likely to net you the weak that you want, so Hard to Wound 2 becomes a liability when most attacks already fall in the 1-5 area.

What are the defensive liabilities associated with high defense stats that actually help avoid getting hit? With Armor?

Edited July 3, 2012 by PierceSternum

[Q'iq'el]

I could almost see if it were the case that Red Joker only did severe, but when on a NEGATIVE flip, it just seems nuts that on top of everything else that they get an additional card flip of damage.

You also get a higher chance to pull Black Joker. On positive flips too. Not only that, but Black always beats Red.

The thing is that while your chance of pulling Red Joker on negative flips goes up, just like your chance of pulling Black Joker on positive flips goes up, the positives of getting the fate twisted your way far outweigh the negatives of this small increase in the chance of pulling out the Joker.

The main and real benefit of these fate twists is in gaining (positive flips) or denying (negative flips) ability to cheat, which removes the random element altogether. This is the context in which the matter needs to be considered. H2W may bite you every once in a while, but it is beneficial every other time your opponent attacks you. Not just on the damage flips, but also when he commits more resources to the attack than he would otherwise have to, in order to get his damage flips into positives.

And on the top of that there's a very small chance of pulling it off and getting a win out of a certain failure situation. Such is the game - have a plan B ready.

[PierceSternum]

but Black always beats Red.

Nope. not damage.

Could we also say that armor ratings count as that many extra damage to the target instead of reduction when a red joker is flipped to give them a liability? We could say that the armor ruptured and widened the wound... Stuff happens. Small chance, right? So no problem. Keeps the game exciting with that random stuff...

[Q'iq'el]

Nope. not damage.

Huh? Page 23 Black Joker section.

Edit:

Ok, I think I know where your confusion comes from.

If you pull both Red and Black Joker on the damage flip, you get no damage as Black Joker always wins (page 23).

However if you pull Red Joker, and then on the second damage flip you get the Black one, then only the second damage flip is reduced to 0. The first damage flip remains on severe and is still applied. This is what page 45 rules on Jokers in Damage Flips say.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Q'iq'el