How to fix schemes: House rules or future changes

[Buddhanutz]

Hello Everyone

I have been playing Malifaux for around 4 years now and I really enjoy the game and the fiction of the game world. As everyone knows, there has been a lot of talk about how to "fix" Malifaux or at least establish a better power balance between models and factions; right off the bat I will say that I strongly believe that Malifaux does need to be balanced.

Schemes are a unique part of Malifaux, and they, in my opinion, are fun, intriguing, yet not well constructed. Schemes currently don't work that well (at least 65% of them don't), yet, as a game mechanic, schemes are a source of hope for Malifaux because they are an avenue through which in-game balance can be partially addressed.

I would like to discuss possible changes to the current list of schemes, as well as more overarching changes to schemes, such as allowing the harder schemes to be worth more than 1 or 2 VP's. Discussion of house-created schemes or changes to current schemes that you use in your games would also be welcomed.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Here's one thought:

Assassinate: Must be announced. Choose one enemy Master or Henchman.

If your models inflict at least 3 Wd on the target Master of Henchman: 1 VP

If the Master or Henchman is no longer in play: 2 VP

[FearLord]

I think you need to present the case for why you consider schemes need fixing... I don't necessarily disagree that there are some schemes that are easier than others and barring some artificial restriction on schemes there are some that I would never play over others, but I'm not sure this thread is going to produce much of value unless you spell out the specific problems that you are trying to fix...

[Buddhanutz]

Good point as well as a nice suggestion on fixing assassination. Here are the points that need to be addressed:

1)Schemes that are too difficult to achieve, like the outcast only scheme that is based on your opponent not announcing their own schemes.

2)Schemes that are too easy to achieve, like Kidnaped

* The net result of 1 and 2 is that people play the same handful of schemes.

3)Schemes that allow your opponent to keep you from achieving through killing their own models.

4)Better balance across faction only schemes, such as the Arcanist schemes being largely based on movement---- that does not make any sense to me in terms of balance and in terms of fluff.

I think that anyone who has played the game long enough, has their own understanding of what needs to be fixed, and that is what I would like to have discussed.

[*Jack*]

I love malifaux as is. And I'm content to play it in its current state.

However, some schemes need to be redressed. Example is Neverborn, kidnap. I use this if I'm expecting a close or tough game, or dont use it if I intend to go easy on my opponent. It's easy VP - every list has some chaff that will die, no doubt, especially if you put some effort into killing it. It's also unnanounced, and can get 2 VP off that. That's pretty powerful.

Other schemes, just aren't taken, at all. There are loads of examples, but ones I can think of are seamus's specific one. For a start, you MUST take the CCK to complete it, and it's damn near impossible with it's cb of 3. Another example is reclaim malifaux, the neverborn specific one. It's not terrible per se, but requires a lot of interactions from your crew, where the VP can be achieved so much easier elsewhere.

[pixelante]

I think twart is fine, if my opponent doesn't announce any schemes I get one VP right away and if they do then I get the chance to stop them for 2VP. Win/win I think, though it could be broken by taking the meta tactic of announcing only one scheme of two.

Perhaps a better idea is to have an honesty system where you can't take the same scheme in consecutive games.

[Dorian]

For the millionth time I present Dorians dominating seamus scheme.

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to hide:

You must kill or sacrifice 3 enemy models while they are under the effects of Undead psychosis.

Fun, thematic, doesn't require you take any specific model aside Seamus, requires master interaction, decently challenging as if you UP something your opponent knows it may be a priority target and will spend resources to save it.

[Forar]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some tweaks to current schemes, and some new ones in particular. While I know balancing them can't be easy with all the variables in the game, adding even one or two more per faction and a handful of general ones could open up game objectives greatly.

One that garners my ire is the Guild one is Round Up. As with most you have to announce it for 2, and needing to kill, bury or sacrifice every single enemy model other than their master/henchman is quite a tall order. Compared to Kidnap where they only need to take out 2 of 3 models for 1 vp, and all 3 for 2, without announcing at all, that's a hell of an advantage.

Now, granted, Kidnap is something of an outlier, and might do with some tweaking/toning down (as with many game balance changes, it's often easier to bring the outliers down to the level of everything else than to bump up dozens of schemes to the level of the outliers), but the comparison seems fairly apt.

Hell, with a little luck your opponent will do all the work for you even (example; Desperate Mercs in a Sonnia list probably aren't long for this world). And while it can be argued that you can combat this trend by not intending to sacrifice your own figures and taking big, tough burly minions instead to make them hardier, as noted above, every list has its chaff. The guild excels at efficient 4-5ss figures, and giving them up entirely when facing the entire Neverborn faction just isn't an option.

Note: I'm not trying to rant at great length about Kidnap. My local Neverborn player is good about choosing a variety of schemes, I'm merely using that as an example of a scheme that seems like it'd be worth a look at.

And I really do hope we see more/new schemes and strategies down the road. Making new ones (especially a number of them across the factions) balanced and different enough to be worth adding to the lists likely wouldn't be easy, but I have faith it could be done.

[ravenborne]

It has been suggested by one of our local players that a Master specific scheme should be written so that it can be achieved in Avatar form or not. What do you think of that suggestion?

[Math Mathonwy]

For the millionth time I present Dorians dominating seamus scheme.

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to hide:

You must kill or sacrifice 3 enemy models while they are under the effects of Undead psychosis.

Fun, thematic, doesn't require you take any specific model aside Seamus, requires master interaction, decently challenging as if you UP something your opponent knows it may be a priority target and will spend resources to save it.

I think this is a good idea, but maybe still a bit weak. I mean, models under UP are no longer an immediate threat so expending resources to killing them is often not the optimal strategy so maybe killing three is a bit of a tall order? I very much like the basic idea, though.

[Adran]

There was a brief period that some schemes were worth 3 points. These were taken all the time as the ability to get to 9 or 10 VP when your opponent is restricted to 8 gives you a huge advantage in setting the tempo of the game.

I also think that this took away from the Stratergy. After all if there are 2 schemes that you can get 3 points from, then by taking Jack daw you can be at 7 points with out doing anything that the randomly generated objective asks you.

I like that schemes come with an easy and a hard version, and that this is rewarded. I also like that they are less important that the Stratergy, as this continues forcing you to change crews. So I don't think 3 point versions are a good idea.

When the crews have such different capabilities it is very hard to get balences schemes. After all, Colette and Marcus can be very good at power ritual, but Ramos and Rasputina are never going to be the models that reach 4 corners in a game.

Mind you, Kidnap still seems to easy for any of the neverborne, and whilst the scheme might be good for reducing "crew upgrade" lists, the neverborne aren't with out a few of those lists themselves.

[ravenborne]

For the millionth time I present Dorians dominating seamus scheme.

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to hide:

You must kill or sacrifice 3 enemy models while they are under the effects of Undead psychosis.

Great idea, but what about changing it so it could be done in Avatar form? What if the goal was to make people run away...lets say Seamus has to cause three models to fall back? This is design intent now, not word-smithed yet.

[Nephalumps]

I really like Malifaux, but I do think there are some areas that can use some polish. I think the Strategies/Schemes are one of those areas. I don't think you need a complete overhaul of these sections or anything, but I think you can shake the game up in fun ways by tweaking some things in those sections.

One thing to bear in mind when discussing potential 3 VP schemes: in the current version of the rules (at least, in the Rules Manual,) there's a hard cap on the VP you can earn. 8 for a Scrap, 10 for a Brawl. So even if you took two 3 VP schemes, you couldn't get 10 points and "auto-win."

I kind of like 3 VP schemes as an idea. I don't know the best way to implement it; maybe you make a 3 VP version of each scheme (ultra-hard version,) or a sub-set of schemes that are 2/3 VP, but you can only take one? Where I think 3 VP schemes gets interesting is that if you have access to those, you can potentially get 6 VP from schemes (or 5 VP, if you could only take one.)

That gives you a legit bid for victory based on your schemes, if you end up in a scenario where you're really behind the 8-ball and not likely to get the 4 VP from the scenario. I can also see the downside to that though, because it may allow you to too easily avoid playing the scenario and trying for a schemes win.

Looking at it in that light, it may be better to create a "hard" schemes section that are worth 3 VP total, and only allow you to take one scheme from that category. That gives you a 5 VP possibility for schemes if you announce everything and choose one of the "hard" schemes, which is just enough to eke out a win if you can deny your opponent 4 VPs, but not enough if they can get 6 VPs (so it kind of comes down to skill and focus at that point.)

I also think the game would benefit from having a larger pool of schemes to select from overall. I think one of the reasons you see the same schemes used consistently is because the pool of general schemes is actually kind of small, and the Faction/Master specific schemes are really limited as well.

Adding more scheme options could do a lot to shake up what people are likely to play, and I think it would also help the competitive scene, which limits your ability to take duplicate schemes (which is a great way to shake things up, but not really suitable for casual play.) I don't think you need to add a lot - maybe 4 more general, and one more for each Faction specific choice.

I'm also in the boat where I think some schemes need to be tweaked to be less "automatic." I remember Kidnap being originally worded as needing to be removed via melee attacks, or something like that, which I thought was a more reasonable way to implement the idea. Similarly, I think its odd that Assassinate doesn't require your models to kill the enemy Master/Henchman that you select, just that they not be in play at the end of the game.

I think those are more open ended to prevent stuff like Poison from screwing you out of the Scheme (along with the other myriad effects that are similar to that,) but I think that kind of open-endedness of the Scheme wording makes them a little too easy to achieve. Tightening up stuff like that would also help to motivate players to consider a variety of Schemes.

[caen]

I also observe that some of the schemes are easier to accomplish than others – and players tend to choose this easier schemes to gain a victory.

Maybe, the most frequently taken schemes should be worth less victory points to balance the game: 1 VP and 1,5 VP if announced will make big difference and force players to consider harder to accomplish schemes.

[Gruesome]

@Dorian, I really like that.

In general, I am a big fan of something that was suggested in another thread that I am failing to find at the moment...

It was called "James Bonding" the schemes. (Like the villains that always lay out their designs)

Basically, if you DID announce to get the higher points, you ran the risk of -1VP for failing.

What I really liked about it was that it encouraged more secret schemes and also promoted preventing opponent schemes much more than simply going for your own.

Just brings so much more variety with such a simple change that I find it quite appealing. You can explain the rule change in 2 sentences. Done. Easy.

[Buddhanutz]

I like the "James Bonding" idea. My group learned really quickly that for a good number of the schemes there was no real reason not to announce them since the benefit of an extra VP was so big.

[Forar]

That ("James Bond'ing") does have some appeal. Higher risk to account for the greater reward. While it's not just a tournament issue, I'm under the impression that competitively it is rare for people to not announce schemes unless they aren't forced to and can still get 2 points (Kidnap is the obvious one, can't recall if there are any others like this off the top of my head), which leads me to think that if it's become such a standard/staple, that perhaps announcing just isn't as much a detriment as one would otherwise expect from the increased reward.

Also, the math seems (at a glance) like it'd work out. If a player announces both schemes and scores full points for 1 scheme and their strat, that's 5vp, meaning their opponent has to also score full strat VP and either both schemes (if unannounced) or 1 scheme and have not taken the other (which I understand is also a giant rarity).

The risk of a penalty for failing to complete a scheme might just be what makes it more attractive to take a single scheme instead.

Now, there is a counter point to this; it also means that it's much easier to mess with your opponent's plans, making some schemes all but unplayable without update. If you thought someone murdering their own master was obnoxious during shared Deliver the Message, imagine them doing so and killing off their own Protege, leaving you a maximum possible 1vp, and that's if you success at an announced scheme, otherwise you cap out at 0 or -1 points.

And given that the idea is not just to make unannounced schemes and/or SS's for schemes more viable tactical choices, we should probably try to keep that in mind while avoiding further pigeonholing other schemes.

Basically, it'd need further rules/mechanics in place, or a lot of schemes would need updating or replacing to make it workable, imo.

[decker_cky]

I think there needs to be qualifiers on all schemes - something like "If an announced scheme becomes impossible to accomplish because the opposing player sacrifices or kills one of their own models, the scheme is considered complete for 1VP." Doesn't give the full 2VP for an announced scheme, but it can be an easy 1VP that you don't have to try for if your opponent wants to make impossible.

The James Bond rule for announced schemes is awesome too. Will make for more games where playing to stop opponents from accomplishing their schemes is the best plan of action, even at the expense of your own schemes.

Edited August 30, 2012 by decker_cky

[Nephalumps]

I like the "James Bonding" idea as well. It definitely feels like the current set up doesn't have a strong enough distinction between announcing and not announcing schemes.

That's also complicated by a "meta" issue, but its worth bearing in mind: if the number of "good" schemes is small, I have a decent shot at guessing your scheme, even if you don't announce it. Even if you pull off your unannounced scheme(s), it creates a VP deficit that I think puts you a bit on the clock: even if you pull everything off, you're capped at 6 VP. Whereas if you announce both, your cap is 8 VP, with more scenarios available where you can pull off 6 VP and force a tie.

That may just be my experience with the game, but I think the system could be polished a bit more to make announcing/not announcing a more interesting gambit.

Alternatively, some schemes are such a lock that it doesn't make sense to not announce them. Kirai with Bodyguard is a really safe bet, for example. I think situations like that fall into the same bucket as something like Kidnap, where the ease of achieving the scheme should be looked at, relative to it's value.

Granted, I have no idea how to balance all of that; I'm just spit balling here.

[decker_cky]

I think James Bonding would change the dynamic. If you have two announced schemes, you have to go all out focusing on completing your schemes. If you have two unannounced schemes, you ideally should be able to more easily complete them, but you also need to focus on making your opponent fail, since stopping 1 scheme would put them at 5 points max most likely - enough for a win. If you have 1 announced and 1 unannounced, you'll have to react depending on how your opponent's schemes look.

Along with James Bonding, there would need to be some rebalancing of schemes overall so they're roughly equal in difficulty, but as a general change, I think it would be a good dynamic.

[Nephalumps]

Yeah, I agree that it would take some reworking to pull off. But I think the word "dynamic" is the right way to think about it. That's one of the things that kind of bugs me about the scheme system right now: it feels pretty static and predictable.

Malifaux in general does a really good job of being an unpredictable, dynamic game, that it's funny the core motivators (strats and schemes) are pretty static and predictable. Not that I think they need to be more random or anything; I think the number of options could use a boost, and re-thinking the approach during that design review couldn't hurt.