Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Silas Cordell]

Then do away with the additional damage flip altogether. RJ counts as a 14/severe of any suit with the ability to supersede a negative flip. Or, if additional damage is somehow a must, make it severe + weak, no flip required. Just my opinion.

Personally, I can't see making the RJ count as just severe. The tradeoff would have to be making the BJ do weak damage to maintain balance.

RJ as severe + weak, I could get behind, though. I would say that if that change were made, I would want it to be that way in all circumstances. I do not want to have the jokers doing different things depending on how many of what kind of twist they have. That's too complex.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Silas Cordell

[Hatchethead]

RJ as severe + weak, I could get behind, though. I would say that if that change were made, I would want it to be that way in all circumstances. I do not want to have the jokers doing different things depending on how many of what kind of twist they have. That's too complex.

Indeed, that was my intention. Change it across the board, not just in the case of a negative flip, etc.

However, I'm still fine with having the RJ count as just severe. The fact that it can be any suit, counts as a 14 and trumps a negative flip, that alone makes it quite beneficial and special. True, on top of being the mirror image on the negative side of things, the BJ can also reduce damage inflicted to zero ... but the black joker SHOULD be slightly more "powerful" than the red. Black trumps red, after all, and I don't believe the jokers need to be perfectly symmetrical (from a design standpoint).

Edited July 9, 2012 by Hatchethead

[Gruesome]

I do not want to have the jokers doing different things depending on how many of what kind of twist they have. That's too complex.

For all the things in the game, it seems odd to me saying that "Red Jokers do not get an extra damage flip when :-fate" qualifies as "complex".

[ravenborne]

I don't think its too bad, because I know everyone with HTW will know the rule and kindly remind their opponents every time it comes up.

[Math Mathonwy]

Which is in every way the exact polar opposite of my view.

They are spectacularly climactic.

If you were in control every step of the way and dropped exactly the cards I could expect and HtW and no Joker swings showed up: that would equal boring. I could see everything coming.

If you could control every step, yes it would be boring. I (nor anyone else) didn't suggest something like that.

Yes, RJ in an opportune time could be climactic, I suppose. I've yet to see it, though - every time it has come up it has changed a tight game into a boring one (or done nothing especially memorable). My Witchling Stalker killing that Teddy was just... I ended up winning the game in a very, very pedestrian manner 8-2 while had that Teddy survived, it would've been a true nailbiter with me having to do some extremely difficult decisions sending LJ to deal with the bear through a Coppelius ambush while sending her Guardian to perform the strategy behind enemy lines.

I've been bitten by the Red Joker maybe twice in a situation where it truly mattered. I've inflicted it upon my opponents a lot and I always feel like apologizing when it comes up and ends up killing something valuable that "shouldn't" have died to the hit.

[Silas Cordell]

For all the things in the game, it seems odd to me saying that "Red Jokers do not get an extra damage flip when :-fate" qualifies as "complex".

I suppose it's the niche nature of the idea. It's a special rule, that supersedes another special rule, but only in particular circumstances. It makes you have to think about the damage the card causes, where every other card you don't have to do that. Am I making any sense?

[Gruesome]

I see. Yeah, from the perspective it does feel more convoluted.

[Forar]

For those advocating a change to the Jokers, a question;

How would you adjust the interplay between the two when both show up at the same time? (if at all)

If we saw an adjustment to how each card behaved whether it was a + or - twist, would that not then lead to further alterations with how they reacted when both showed up during a + or - twist?

Or would you just keep it simply that the BJ continued to supercede the RJ, and follow those rules accordingly?

[Gruesome]

Speaking only for myself(But of an opinion shared by others) I am not advocating any change other than removing the extra damage flip when its a negative flip.

So BJ vs. RJ etc. does not enter into it.

[Csonti]

So most of the "haters" say the RJ is a bad thing because it ruins all the hard work of a tactical genius when it comes up in a negative flip and therefore it should be changed. While I can accept that there are situations when you can feel the game was lost/won in a single flip without a real fight, it's not the RJ that has the most random impact of the game. Not even the second one btw. The perception of the player here is easily biased because of the dramatic (and mostly rare) appearance of the Jokers.

However in the real world (ok, in the fantasy world of Malifaux) the random element that has the most impact in a battle is the Initiative Flip. You can simply just lose outright in case your opponent steals the initiative at the most important turn or two. Especially versus chain-activated companies. It just doesn't look so unlucky, nor that memorable and therefore couldn't be hated enough that I fliped a 6 and my opponent won the initiative with an 8. But since it is more frequent and has much more influence on the outcame of the game than the appearance of the RJ we should ban initiative flips first, right?

[maverickman5]

In general, I don't see any reason to change either the RJ or the BJ. Malifaux is a game of chance/luck and cheating your luck. The jokers just represent the "little miracles" that occur with mundane activities/combat. A lucky headshot, random bullet stopped by something in your pocket or similar moments that we all love in the movies.

This isn't supposed to be a 100% skill based game, the luck and randomness is a factor to be remembered and respected when conducting tactics. There are plenty of "critical hit/miss" items in other games that no seems to be complaining about, and in most dice based games it is more likely to occur and multiple times in a turn too. Where in Malifaux it happens once in a turn usually at most.

HTW isnt really that evil of an ability once you start playing around it, so you wont be able to cheat your damage as much, but against most Res models you are almost always hitting them. It takes more hits to kill a model but they are getting hit more often.

[jmp_mydog]

HTW isnt really that evil of an ability once you start playing around it, so you wont be able to cheat your damage as much, but against most Res models you are almost always hitting them. It takes more hits to kill a model but they are getting hit more often.

And I really see flipping the red on a H2W model as that miracle headshot that takes down the monster.

[Silas Cordell]

For those advocating a change to the Jokers, a question;

How would you adjust the interplay between the two when both show up at the same time? (if at all)

If we saw an adjustment to how each card behaved whether it was a + or - twist, would that not then lead to further alterations with how they reacted when both showed up during a + or - twist?

Or would you just keep it simply that the BJ continued to supercede the RJ, and follow those rules accordingly?

While I wouldn't say that I am advocating a change, I would say that the only change to the jokers that I think makes sense would be to make the RJ severe+weak on all damage flips. I would leave everything else as is.

I do not think twists of fate should change how the jokers work, and I think they should trump everything else, and black trumps red.

They are the two ends of the spectrum of Fate, and anything else seems off to me, within the confines of these concepts.

YMMV, I suppose.

[Malovane]

make the RJ severe+weak on all damage flips

I've seen this suggested a lot and I have to disagree. I happen to like the additional flip on RJ damage. Adds a little extra touch of randomness. Makes weak models into serious threats with a bit of luck. Makes the game more interesting to me knowing that my opponents weakest minion could destroy my strongest with but a flip of the cards. All comes down to fate and luck and knowing that bad things happen. Not to mention the nice little layer of risk analysis such a potential threat brings to the table.

[Omenbringer]

And I really see flipping the red on a H2W model as that miracle headshot that takes down the monster.

This is how I think of it also.

[Wulfen]

HTW isnt really that evil of an ability once you start playing around it, so you wont be able to cheat your damage as much, but against most Res models you are almost always hitting them. It takes more hits to kill a model but they are getting hit more often.

I don't find that to be true at all. Ressers defense isn't as bad as the perception that it is. [The below isn't pointed at you. ]

In any case, I think the Jokers work just fine. The claim is that it's easier to pull it on HtW, but what about when it's in your hand? Unless you've got soulstones to burn, it's going to stay in your hand on HtW models, generally.

I don't get the argument. Take the jokers out of your deck if you want predictability. I'm not helping at the moment, but I'm getting sorta sick of checking threads, especially on balance or rules issues, and it keeps devolving into yet another joker 'discussion'. Wyrd made a genius mechanic, created a whole new system, with fantastic models and story, and you guys blow right past that and keep tripping over the dead horse out back.

[maverickman5]

I don't get the argument. Take the jokers out of your deck if you want predictability. I'm not helping at the moment, but I'm getting sorta sick of checking threads, especially on balance or rules issues, and it keeps devolving into yet another joker 'discussion'. Wyrd made a genius mechanic, created a whole new system, with fantastic models and story, and you guys blow right past that and keep tripping over the dead horse out back.

Agreed.

[13th Warrior]

^^ +1

[Math Mathonwy]

However in the real world (ok, in the fantasy world of Malifaux) the random element that has the most impact in a battle is the Initiative Flip. You can simply just lose outright in case your opponent steals the initiative at the most important turn or two. Especially versus chain-activated companies. It just doesn't look so unlucky, nor that memorable and therefore couldn't be hated enough that I fliped a 6 and my opponent won the initiative with an 8. But since it is more frequent and has much more influence on the outcame of the game than the appearance of the RJ we should ban initiative flips first, right?

Aye, sadly only Eden does Initiative really, seriously right in minis games.

For those unfamiliar with how it goes, you have a finite pool of strategy points that are used for special abilities of the models and paying for tactical cards but also for initiative. Both players bid in secret a number of strategy points and the one who bid the most wins. You have good control over the initiative that way in that you can bid really a lot if it's absolutely critical or can keep the points in the reserve for the future or for using abilities and cards. But that is not all. Additionally minis have a speed attribute and when one mini is about to activate, a fighter with a higher speed may intercept the activation and go first instead. If the first player has a fighter with even higher speed, they may interrupt in return and so on.

It's an extremely good, extremely tactical system. Another pretty good one is Hell Dorado, where the player who killed the most on the previous turn gets initiative - especially cool in non-killy scenarios. But then there's a lot of systems where it's either totally random or based on some stat (army strategy rating, the leader's skill or something like that).

But I'm not really seeing a total overhaul of the initiative system for Malifaux, so I'm not even trying to advocate it.

[ravenborne]

After having thought about the bigger picture, I would rather have Wyrd working on fixing Strategies and Schemes and OP model tweaks than fooling around with this joker issue.

As an example of some extremes:

Sabotage (Arcanist) is basically, "If you can demonstrate the ability to move a model effectively gain 2 VP"

Wheres "My Little Friend" (Seamus) is nearly impossible to complete without sacrifice of tactics.

If you look at Collette and Seamus, they are often cited as two masters on the ends of the power spectrum. Imagine the balancing that could be done just by modifying these two schemes a bit.

[nerdelemental]

re: Jokers. Again. >sigh<

I don't want to stop any discussion on the value of revision of any mechanic or rule. As long as it stays positive and healthy, I say let it go.

Here's my current observation regarding the Red (and Black by proximity): There are some that clearly perceive a problem. However, like many issues, when some people see a problem they want to talk about it and ask for change. That happened and on our side of the fence it got to look like everyone thought there might be a problem. But, it's looking more and more like the people that didn't mind it simply went on playing and not talking about it, because to them there was nothing to talk about. Now, having focused the discussion, and having those people chime in, I'm wondering if the greater majority are saying "No, this is fine."

Again, don't want to end this discussion prematurely and do not want to tell anyone to shut up and get in line, but I am wondering if there's truth that this Joker issue might be an issue to a minority. And I do understand their point and side but I strongly disagree with it, as I've openly said. That doesn't automatically make me right and it doesn't mean I [speaking for the Dev Team] won't consider any revision for it, large or small. But I'm hearing more and more people say they appreciate it for what it is.

And *I* think the greatest imbalance in game play right now is in Strats/Schemes and model costing. Not that the game is unplayable or anything like it. But if there was not this forum, and you simply asked me what I was looking at, that's what I'd say. Jokers wouldn't even be on my first page.

Other thoughts?

[morella]

I have stated elsewhere that I come at this from a hobbyist stance, and winning is really not important to me, so you can take what I say with as much salt as needed.

I have always found the Joker mechanic to be supported by the fluff, and I like the rules to follow the fluff. Yeah, this might create balance issues, and I am the last person to offer an opinion on that specific to this game. But in the end, I'm not pushed one way or the other on it.

From an efficiency standpoint, it would seem that points costs and strats would be the quickest and least invasive way to tweak the rules. It could even be offered up as a preliminary change and offered for wider testing perhaps as there would likely be no real IP issues since the substantive information is already out there. IMO

[Gruesome]

I don't think that anything can be accurately gauged by number of people that choose to participate in a particular thread argument.

To me, the merits of the arguments are the only thing of relevance.

For the most part, I think that it could be the case that people that play factions and models that rely on negative flips more than others, in particular negative flips that reach :-fate with any sort of regularity are the ones that have been more vocal here.

So, there is either merit in their point that it feels like a "benefit" that they enjoy has an occasional VERY LARGE downside or there is NOT merit in it.

I am sure there are also some people that have lots of H2W that do not care or that like jokers as they are. I get that.

Again, speaking only for myself, I wonder how people would feel if the other "defensive" benefits had similar downsides when jokers rear their head.

I've asked before how people would like it if "Armor" did bonus damage, rather then still subtracting damage when a red joker was flipped?

The last thing that I would say is that I have had red jokers made two games more enjoyable to me than not as they directly contributed to my son beating me which is always a positive experience in our house.

But, in most other scenarios, I would not like to have lost by the circumstances I did because I felt like I had put myself in the best position to win.

If they did slightly less damage, like only being a severe on negative flip, I may have still lost, but it still would have been much closer...

Edited July 11, 2012 by Gruesome

[nilus]

And *I* think the greatest imbalance in game play right now is in Strats/Schemes and model costing. Not that the game is unplayable or anything like it. But if there was not this forum, and you simply asked me what I was looking at, that's what I'd say. Jokers wouldn't even be on my first page.

Can't agree with you more on this. The Red/Black Joker issue may irrate people and add randomness but since its an equal opportunities killer it doesn't unbalance the game over time. Disregarding it happening in "That one important game" or that some gamers are "Lucky". The fact that mathematically it hurts everyone the same.

I think the Strategies and especially some Schemes getting an overhaul would do a lot more good to balance the game both competitively and in friendly games. I'd actually like to see communities work on customizing those to their meta instead of doing model comp.

Edited July 11, 2012 by nilus

[Gruesome]

And *I* think the greatest imbalance in game play right now is in Strats/Schemes and model costing. Not that the game is unplayable or anything like it. But if there was not this forum, and you simply asked me what I was looking at, that's what I'd say. Jokers wouldn't even be on my first page.

Other thoughts?

Forgot to quote this and comment before my prior diatribe...

100% agreement.

Absolutely, yes.

And what I also like about this is that I think that two birds could be killed with one stone.

If, statistically speaking (Oh please god, no) H2W was not as great a benefit as originally envisioned (Its still nice, no one saying otherwise), then however SS are calculated could take that into account.

Now, with SS being such a small number, its tougher to really say that a model should count an entire SS less than it did, but still, its something that could be taken into account. Its one area where I think that GW was smart to make point totals higher as there is more room for adjustments in relative values...

Edited July 11, 2012 by Gruesome