Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[PierceSternum]

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.

That seems... Different... than what I have seen, but I can see the wording there.

[Silas Cordell]

last page of thread

Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to set off the avalanche...

[Cats Laughing]

Speaking of H2W and the Red Joker, I'm fairly certain I've played far more games where I've had the Red Joker in my control hand and been unable to use it thanks to negative damage flips, than games where I've seen it on a negative damage flip.

[Omenbringer]

Speaking of H2W and the Red Joker, I'm fairly certain I've played far more games where I've had the Red Joker in my control hand and been unable to use it thanks to negative damage flips, than games where I've seen it on a negative damage flip.

I would definately have to agree with this, the Jokers represent such potentcy that they are far more likely to be hoarded in the control hand than left to chance in the deck.

I can think of many games where I've kept the Black Joker in my control hand the whole game just to keep it out of the rotation (and this with Some'rs already diminished hand). I have also done this with the Red Joker, saving it for that awesome strike with the Boomer and Dumb Luck Trigger that just never seems to materialize.

They are potent for sure but not always game changing, mine usually show up when not wanted (Dumb Luck trigger with Some'rs Boomer), on inconsequential flips (casting Never Happen or Soeey!) or the dreaded pairs (where you flip the Red for the Strike and the Black for damage).

I like them the way they are, it adds to the game for me.

[Gruesome]

I cycle cards often with larger crews. Hanging on to the red joker is not a good idea for me. "Perfect" opportunities seldom happen. I would rather flip it 4-5 times in a game, than hope for one "perfect" moment.

Maybe others play differently, but Black Joker is the only one I hang on to.

With the very point of the people that WANT changes, why on earth would anyone want to reduce the chances of the very thing that destroys hard to wound by sitting on a red joker?

But, ymmv...

[Math Mathonwy]

You also get a higher chance to pull Black Joker. On positive flips too. Not only that' date=' but Black always beats Red.[/quote']

That's not a valid comparison, really. Changing from doing two points of damage to zero points isn't as big as changing from two points to ten points or something similarly ridiculous. My latest game became really anticlimactic when my Witchling Stalker randomly shot a Teddy dead with Red Joker and severe damage doing exactly the right amount of damage to kill it. That was such a huge swing that what had been a close game became one-sided and boring, i.e. not fun.

[dgraz]

That's not a valid comparison, really. Changing from doing two points of damage to zero points isn't as big as changing from two points to ten points or something similarly ridiculous.

Unless it's a resist flip or damage prevention and you only need an ace to survive.

The Black can screw you royally, the Red is the opposite end of the spectrum. Even though I happen to see the Black much more than the Red, I like them the way they are.

[Cats Laughing]

I cycle cards often with larger crews. Hanging on to the red joker is not a good idea for me. "Perfect" opportunities seldom happen. I would rather flip it 4-5 times in a game, than hope for one "perfect" moment.

Maybe others play differently, but Black Joker is the only one I hang on to.

With the very point of the people that WANT changes, why on earth would anyone want to reduce the chances of the very thing that destroys hard to wound by sitting on a red joker?

But, ymmv...

So you would rather throw the Red Joker in your hand at an attack flip, casting flip or defense/resist flip just to get it back in the deck and hope it gets randomly flipped for a damage flip, over attempting to use the resources you have to generate a cheatable damage flip and use it against a target of your choosing? Sounds very much like gambling. Sounds like it could work, but yes, ymmv.

Honestly though, I'm not against a minor change, like making the Red a severe + weak, as opposed to the current severe + flip, as i certainly understand the negative perception it can give to players.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Cats Laughing

[Buhallin]

That's not a valid comparison, really. Changing from doing two points of damage to zero points isn't as big as changing from two points to ten points or something similarly ridiculous. My latest game became really anticlimactic when my Witchling Stalker randomly shot a Teddy dead with Red Joker and severe damage doing exactly the right amount of damage to kill it. That was such a huge swing that what had been a close game became one-sided and boring, i.e. not fun.

How about when Chompy pulls a Black Joker during a Yo-yo strike, and was stuck there for McMourning's entire crew to carve him up? (Pre-errata, of course).

IMHO, the joker complains are largely perceptual bias. It doesn't really happen that often, but it's very memorable when it does. I've had people cheat to severe on me against models without H2W far, FAR more often than I've had Seamus eat a Red Joker on the :-fate:-fate flips.

Yes, Armor doesn't have the same potential drawback, but it also doesn't have as much benefit. As Q says, your opponent has to burn resources to try and overcome H2W. You're also burning a lot of high cards from their deck that go away wasted. That's HUGE.

The Hard to Wound does have a drawback to it - let's call it a 10 point drawback. But it's got at least 3-4 different advantages at 5 points each. Overall, I believe H2W is a very solid advantage, it's just that the advantages are much more subtle and less memorable than when the Red Joker hits.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Personally, I think all that randomness ruins the game. That's why I play a deck with 54 Seven of Rams cards instead.

[Gruesome]

So you would rather throw the Red Joker in your hand at an attack flip, casting flip or defense/resist flip just to get it back in the deck and hope it gets randomly flipped for a damage flip, over attempting to use the resources you have to generate a cheatable damage flip and use it against a target of your choosing?

No, what I would like is to have the card for the perfect moment, but I will settle for having it used as many times as possible, so I simply do not hold onto it normally. I let it cycle as many times as possible by using it as quickly as possible.

MAYBE it will wind up in my hand next turn, or as an extra draw from Reanimator or whatever. But what I am NOT doing is letting it sit in my hand unless there is a VERY good chance of its being used for something special very soon.

Maybe you have these perfect opportunities present themselves more often than I do, but I will settle for 4-5 "pretty darn good" uses of it a game.

[Dustcrusher]

MTG hoooo

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

Magic? 40k?! Look guys, I know you're frustrated, but let's not take drastic measures, OK? :-P

On a more serious note, I can't remember if you guys have played Warmahordes or not. It seems like it'd be a good way to scratch the competitive itch. I'd also check out the non-collectible card game Summoner Wars: plenty of strategy and lots of factions to choose from.

Personally, I think all that randomness ruins the game. That's why I play a deck with 54 Eleven of Crows cards instead.

I fixed that for ya *wink*

I've put together some alternative RJ mechanics as a blog post, for people who are interested. It's mainly a discussion starter, not a firm opinion on the subject. Those who are tired of the Red Joker discussion can easily avoid it this way:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/entry.php?159-Amateur-Rulemaking-the-Red-Joker

[Math Mathonwy]

IMHO, the joker complains are largely perceptual bias. It doesn't really happen that often, but it's very memorable when it does.

What does that have to do with anything? It happens and when it happens, it sucks. So what if it happens every game or only every third game? Never has a Red Joker on damage flips improved my enjoyment of the game. It robs me of what my skill has achieved (no matter whether I pull it or my opponent does).

Also, it has happened in three of my last three games (though in one it didn't really matter, since Seamus was going to die to the next hit anyway). I know that doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, but the fact remains, that the strategy of maximizing flips against H2W models is obnoxious and goes against the spirit of the game IMO. You do it when you don't have the Red Joker in hand and haven't yet flipped it. If there's only half the deck left, the chances of this strategy working are actually rather high.

[Buhallin]

What does that have to do with anything? It happens and when it happens, it sucks.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. Card management - including Joker-hunting - is part of the strategy of Malifaux. It's not like we're dealing with dice here.

If there's only half the deck left, the chances of this strategy working are actually rather high.

No, they're really not. If you have half your deck left, you've got 26 cards. Assuming you need 5 for each duel, 4 of those are damage. But only two of those are added by H2W. If you managed 5 attacks, all maximizing the , you've got about a 40% chance of seeing it make a difference.

But there's not much out there that'll get 5 attacks before it goes back over to your opponent, who will then burn more of your cards. Yeah, 40% is high - but 5 attacks against a any model with H2W 2 probably means they'd be dead without it anyway. And that's in an absolutely ideal situation for your scenario.

I've played rezzers since the day I started, and I can count on one hand the times I've seen this come up. On the other hand, literally every attack against a H2W2 model you're seeing the benefit of it being effectively impossible to cheat damage on it. That's huge beyond words. Is it a gamble? Yes, just like a number of other things in Malifaux, it's not all upside. Everything is a choice and a compromise.

If you end up in that situation, then it hasn't "robbed you of what your skill has achieved", because your skill has achieved nothing. You chose to take a risk - a gamble, if you will - and it didn't pay off. That choice is your skill. If your opponent is trying to delve for the Joker and you can't/don't do anything about it, that's a failing of your skill.

It's entirely up to you to dislike it or not - I certainly can't tell you what you will and won't like. But to pretend that there's no benefit to H2W, or that it's all some random bolt-from-the-heavens that strikes down your poor model simply isn't the case. If you're going to run them, you take that chance. In general, it's a big benefit. Occasionally, it backfires. That's the nature of the game.

[Math Mathonwy]

That's entirely a matter of opinion. Card management - including Joker-hunting - is part of the strategy of Malifaux. It's not like we're dealing with dice here.

So you honestly think that it was always the designers' intent that it's good strategy to try and hit a H2W2 model as badly as possible to fish for a Red Joker. Wow.

No, they're really not. If you have half your deck left, you've got 26 cards. Assuming you need 5 for each duel, 4 of those are damage. But only two of those are added by H2W. If you managed 5 attacks, all maximizing the , you've got about a 40% chance of seeing it make a difference.

You fail to understand how a smallish chance of a gigantic reward at basically no extra risk skews things. Don't worry, it's basic human nature that risk analysis fails at extremes of chance and reward/penalty.

If you end up in that situation, then it hasn't "robbed you of what your skill has achieved", because your skill has achieved nothing. You chose to take a risk - a gamble, if you will - and it didn't pay off. That choice is your skill. If your opponent is trying to delve for the Joker and you can't/don't do anything about it, that's a failing of your skill.

My Witchling Stalker randomly killing a Teddy from almost full wounds most certainly robs me of what my skill had and might've achieved. A very exciting game turned boring because of that one Red Joker on a :-fate flip. If you gain great satisfaction from such a win, then more power to you, but I don't. I like a close game, the closer the better but I realize that some people just love to win no matter how (or even, the more one-sided the game, the better).

It's entirely up to you to dislike it or not - I certainly can't tell you what you will and won't like. But to pretend that there's no benefit to H2W, or that it's all some random bolt-from-the-heavens that strikes down your poor model simply isn't the case. If you're going to run them, you take that chance. In general, it's a big benefit. Occasionally, it backfires. That's the nature of the game.

Where have I said that there is no benefit to H2W? Why do you feel the need to invent these strawmen? It really doesn't further the conversation in a fruitful way.

[Calmdown]

It really doesn't further the conversation in a fruitful way.

A very succinct summary of his entire MO

[Q'iq'el]

So you honestly think that it was always the designers' intent that it's good strategy to try and hit a H2W2 model as badly as possible to fish for a Red Joker. Wow.

You fail to understand how a smallish chance of a gigantic reward at basically no extra risk skews things. Don't worry, it's basic human nature that risk analysis fails at extremes of chance and reward/penalty.

There are three misrepresentations of the problem you commit here.

1) It isn't always better strategy to stack negative flips. You increase the chance of extreme reversal of fortunes slightly, but you also increase your chance of failure by a big margin (and unless you hold to BJ, you increase your chance of utter failure as well). So where this "tactic" becomes really beneficial is either a huge gamble (wow I may kill the opponent master with one minion and no waste of resources and if I lose the minion, no sweat) or a truly desperate situation.

So you are a player who doesn't like a desperate attack or a gamble to succeed against your carefully executed plan. That's you though, not some universal objective golden-rule.

2) You present precise planned and well executed action as a "skill", but at the same time you disregard quickly improvised, effective and creative tactics. They require quite a bit of skill too - of different kind, but surely no less important in the game. In fact, the later are probably what marks a truly great player above average crowd, just like it brings a truly great military commander above the military academia.

Moreover, there are plenty of players who enjoy both the planned and balanced approach as well as quick adaptation and creative solutions. That you may get frustrated by those is only fair - they get frustrated whenever your plan proves impenetrable.

So not only are we taking about your subjective perception of skill and fun, but also about being selective as to what skills we value and tolerate, and what isn't even spoken about.

3) Malifaux is a dark place where fate plays jokes on men and people fight to the last breath for survival. A mechanic which reflects the old Chinese saying "a cornered rat bites the cat" is very fitting. Simply don't assume you have a fight in your pocket when the opponent is on his last wounds and don't open your master for retaliation. And if you don't have enough resources to do that, well, then you aren't winning the game by as big margin as you'd think.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[Math Mathonwy]

There are three misrepresentations of the problem you commit here.

I disagree.

1) It isn't always better strategy to stack negative flips.

Did I say it was?

You increase the chance of extreme reversal of fortunes slightly, but you also increase your chance of failure by a big margin (and unless you hold to BJ, you increase your chance of utter failure as well). So where this "tactic" becomes really beneficial is either a huge gamble (wow I may kill the opponent master with one minion and no waste of resources and if I lose the minion, no sweat) or a truly desperate situation.

Naturally. I'm not suggesting that you should go for :-fate:-fate flips in the hopes of getting a Red Joker when you're trying to kill a Rotten Belle with three wounds left. I'm kinda astounded that you feel that I "got this part wrong".

2) You present precise planned and well executed action as a "skill", but at the same time you disregard quickly improvised, effective and creative tactics. They require quite a bit of skill too - of different kind, but surely no less important in the game. In fact, the later are probably what marks a truly great player above average crowd, just like it brings a truly great military commander above the military academia.

What sort of skill did I exhibit by randomly killing that Teddy?

So not only are we taking about your subjective perception of skill and fun, but also about being selective as to what skills we value and tolerate, and what isn't even spoken about.

Flipping a Red Joker is not a skill. I mean, sure, you can influence your odds, but that's quite trivial.

3) Malifaux is a dark place where fate plays jokes on men and people fight to the last breath for survival. A mechanic which reflects the old Chinese saying "a cornered rat bites the cat" is very fitting. Simply don't assume you have a fight in your pocket when the opponent is on his last wounds and don't open your master for retaliation. And if you don't have enough resources to do that, well, then you aren't winning the game by as big margin as you'd think.

You are continuously arguing as if I was always on the receiving end of the Red Joker and as if that were my only objection.

My objection is that a tight game becomes boring when one player manages to randomly kill something critical through a Red Joker on negative flips. Malifaux isn't supposed to be boring. It's supposed to be exciting. I could dress this up in fluff for, but I respect you enough that I won't.

[LupusFerreus]

I suspect this thread will be closed soon.

[Q'iq'el]

I disagree.

Did I say it was?

<cut>

I'm kinda astounded that you feel that I "got this part wrong".

I didn't say that either. I say that you willingly misrepresent the issue, by speaking only of extreme cases. The omission of great majority of the cases does create impression the interaction is universally bad and that the design promotes taking counter-intuitive choices.

While the design rewards spotting some very rare opportunities, gambling big and ripping rewards very rarely. It also promotes not giving up to the last, because even when you are cornered, you still have the slight chance to turn the table on your opponent. We know plenty of other games where players just concede in turn 2 if the opening goes badly.

In other words, what you discuss is just a part of bigger design philosophy, but by taking it out of the context and discussing only the most frustrating (subjectively for you) cases, you misrepresent it.

What sort of skill did I exhibit by randomly killing that Teddy?

There's a skill in winning after losing that Teddy to random event. And there is also a skill in playing so that the Teddy isn't exposed to the attack when you need Teddy to stay alive.

As I said, you are not making mistakes per see, you are misrepresenting the mechanic. It may well be that you achieved some advantage with Seamus, when it got killed by that nasty Red Joker. What killed him is not a random event you couldn't plan for, but a random event you could plan for. You maight have very well been under a false impression (I'm not saying you're doing it willingly) that you were winning that game, even though you had to expose your master to such a risk.

You are continuously arguing as if I was always on the receiving end of the Red Joker and as if that were my only objection. [

My objection is that a tight game becomes boring when one player manages to randomly kill something critical through a Red Joker on negative flips. Malifaux isn't supposed to be boring. It's supposed to be exciting. I could dress this up in fluff for, but I respect you enough that I won't.

This isn't my argument really. I was just using the example. My problem is mainly with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge your way of playing may be as frustrating to others and that the game is about meeting the opponent in between. Malifaux has both excellent planning side to it, starting with Hiring stage and going through all the synergies during the game, and the excellent on-the-spot tactical element to it, where you have to spot an opportunity and execute an out of the blue attack and this attack may be a huge gamble, but you reap huge rewards by it. It may also require abandoning your original plan, which may pay off, or may bite you later on.

In other words, there is a very rich decision-making environment which would simply become poorer if we eliminated all these possibilities and stayed with what's predictable only.

My argument is there is skill in spotting these situations, there is skill in planning so that the risk is avoided altogether and there is skill in damage control after these things happen - all three areas you dismiss completely, suggesting the skill is only in planning, execution and obtaining predictable results.

This is simply a misrepresentation of not only this particular issue, but entire Miniature Wargamming genre, where the skills involved have never been that limited to just one aspect of the gaming. There are more abstract games which refine the skills involved into more "pure" form of one or another kind (purely strategic, purely random etc.), but not in Miniature games, I think.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[Math Mathonwy]

I suspect this thread will be closed soon.

Why? There has been minimal name-calling and the debate has been, though heated, very civilized, at least IMO.

[96p]

My Witchling Stalker randomly killing a Teddy from almost full wounds most certainly robs me of what my skill had and might've achieved. A very exciting game turned boring because of that one Red Joker on a :-fate flip. If you gain great satisfaction from such a win, then more power to you, but I don't. I like a close game, the closer the better but I realize that some people just love to win no matter how (or even, the more one-sided the game, the better).

You realize that you don't have to take the Red Joker, do you ?^^

[Math Mathonwy]

I didn't say that either. I say that you willingly misrepresent the issue' date=' by speaking only of extreme cases. The omission of great majority of the cases does create impression the interaction is universally bad and that the design promotes taking counter-intuitive choices.[/quote']

I am talking only of extreme situations because those are the only problematic ones. I'm honestly very confused by your point here. Why should I mention that Red Joker on casting flips is fine if I have never claimed that it isn't? But in case that's a source of confusion, I think that Red Joker is mostly fine with my only real contention being it's effect on negative damage flips.

Where's the gamble? Flipping at :-fate:-fate:-fate as opposed to :-fate isn't much of a change, really. There's no gamble there, except on the part of the victim, who, according to you, should never have presented even the slightest opportunity for the opponent since it might result in a random death.

I disagree.

No doubt, but after the death of that Teddy, the game was for me to lose. I would've needed to commit some extreme blunders to have been able to pull off a loss afterwards.

Eh, I realize that this is a very theoretical situation for you, but come on, seriously? Teddy is supposed to be durable. It wasn't a tactical mistake on my opponent's part because it is impossible to play Malifaux in a way where you nullify all chances of catastrophe. It's just that his particular sort of catastrophe is so huge that it upsets the game profoundly when it comes to pass.

What are you talking about? This bears no resemblance to any of my previous examples.

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.

No I don't. That's a ridiculous claim. I dismiss them when it comes to Red Joker damage on negative flips, because the risk/reward ratio there is utterly bonkers.

Have you ever seen a really good minis gamer? One who consistently wins in every game he plays with basically any force he plays? I have, and the secret is always minimizing the effects of chance. One particularly incredible example won several 60+ player tournaments in 6th edition WHFB with O&G and footman HE, which was an utterly astounding achievement at the time. Similar to, say, winning the Masters with Molly.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

True, and if the situation comes up again, I won't.

[Q'iq'el]

My Witchling Stalker randomly killing a Teddy from almost full wounds most certainly robs me of what my skill had and might've achieved. A very exciting game turned boring because of that one Red Joker on a :-fate flip. If you gain great satisfaction from such a win, then more power to you, but I don't. I like a close game, the closer the better but I realize that some people just love to win no matter how (or even, the more one-sided the game, the better).

Also to use this particular example. If you played against me, I'd be thrilled. A game that would otherwise turn into typicall encounter would provide me with a challenge to win despite losing Teddy so early to a random event. It may be almost certain defeat, but I'd have fun every step of going down, as I enjoy damage control situations a lot.

Now your opponent might have been just as frustrated as you, I'm not saying he was having fun. But you are consequently refusing to see the larger spectrum of attitudes towards the game. There are rules and mechanics you don't necessairly like, but they may be very enjoyable to other players and that's really it - if it is too much for you to take, there are other games.

A typical successful game will have a good balance between different aspects of the game and the threshold of frustration set so that every kind of player finds enough reasons to stay. I think Malifaux does very well at that. Better than Warmachine in my opinion, but I played only demo games and didn't like it. Also better in Warhammer, depending on the Army Book/Codex you use.

By pushing for one aspect to be valued higher than the other, you threaten to upset the part of the player base which doesn't see eye to eye with you. Sure, nobody tells you to enjoy the same things, but at the very least you can acknowledge these are your subjective frustrations and not objective truths about making the game better.

[Math Mathonwy]

By pushing for one aspect to be valued higher than the other' date=' you threaten to upset the part of the player base which doesn't see eye to eye with you. Sure, nobody tells you to enjoy the same things, but at the very least you can acknowledge these are your subjective frustrations and not objective truths about making the game better.[/quote']

Dude, you're the one suggesting I switch games over this.

I seriously never realized that Red Joker producing Severe plus a second card of damage on negative flips is such a make-or-break thing for, well, apparently lots of people who cheer you on. If that's the case, then, by all means, leave it alone. I suggested it causing merely severe when it comes up on negative flips (as did Nilus after me), but if it would ruin the game for a sizable portion of players, then keep it as it is.

I wonder how many players Malifaux has lost during its previous rules changes. The bury mechanic must've driven out hundreds of players, as it was a much bigger change.

For me, the Red Joker thing is one negative thing amidst quite a few others, but they are outweighed by the cool stuff in the game. Sure, it produces complete anticlimaxes every once in a while, but the game is usually otherwise pretty exciting.