Holy poop, malifaux 2.0!

[Gruesome]

Funny enough, there are areas where the concern is the other way and people are worried about a wholesale switch to 2.0 and a loss of a Malifaux Classic community.

I am going to retire using the term v1.0...

I like that better.

oooohhh... or "Legacy Malifaux"?

In terms of the actual concerns, I will admit that I am excited for the open beta and would be more inclined to want to do that at my gaming store than play "Old School Malifaux".

But... I'd also be willing to play someone in "Retro-Faux" if that's what they insisted we play and they had no other alternative. So, I think ultimately it will be all about your friends/stores/henchman as to whether the shift will be any sort of impact whatsoever.

[Darguth]

Just commenting on this question, as it piqued my interest. nothing, even in 1.0 prevents you from doing that. Just agree with your opponent before hand that you will select your crews blind to a certain SS level and go from there. Does there need to be official rules to justify doing exactly that?

Well, it's not just the ruleset but the balance of the game. Not all masters can deal with all Strategies equally. So the Strategy can really dictate not only how you build your crew, but what Master you're taking in the first place.

Essentially I'd really like to see the balance addressed in such a way that an all-comer list approach is viable. Currently, I don't think it is for the majority of Masters.

It seems that this is at least on the slate with "balancing" Masters as well as streamlining Strategies and scheme sets. Will have to wait and see I suppose

[Gruesome]

Essentially I'd really like to see the balance addressed in such a way that an all-comer list approach is viable. Currently, I don't think it is for the majority of Masters.

Interesting. I'd like to see the opposite and the death of all-comers.

Strat/Scheme selection in light of crew construction is one of the aspects I really like about the game. All-comers are the opposite.

I have plenty of alternate game system choices where I can build all-comer lists all day long.

But, its just my personal preference that this game try to not be like other games in that regard.

[Dracomax]

I am going to retire using the term v1.0...

I like that better.

oooohhh... or "Legacy Malifaux"?

In terms of the actual concerns, I will admit that I am excited for the open beta and would be more inclined to want to do that at my gaming store than play "Old School Malifaux".

But... I'd also be willing to play someone in "Retro-Faux" if that's what they insisted we play and they had no other alternative. So, I think ultimately it will be all about your friends/stores/henchman as to whether the shift will be any sort of impact whatsoever.

AD&Malifaux?

Malifaux:The Original Series?

Mal1faux?

..actualy, Retro-faux sounds about the best, followed by Classic.

Interesting. I'd like to see the opposite and the death of all-comers.

Strat/Scheme selection in light of crew construction is one of the aspects I really like about the game. All-comers are the opposite.

I have plenty of alternate game system choices where I can build all-comer lists all day long.

But, its just my personal preference that this game try to not be like other games in that regard.

If they really want to make the game more inviting for newcomers, forcing it more into the "it's balanced by faction" area isn't going to help. At the least, box sets should be viable, if not the best, most optimized crews for all or most strategies. Remember, not everyone has every crew in a faction, and people who are just picking up the game usually only have a very small model selection. it's part of what draws a lot of people to the game.

Not to say they should go the opposite direction and everything is equally good at everything, just that there needs to be a balance, and every crew should have a chance at every strategy. especially with the move to all strategies shared.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Dracomax
to respond to a second gruesome post

[HalcyonSeraph]

Well, it's not just the ruleset but the balance of the game. Not all masters can deal with all Strategies equally. So the Strategy can really dictate not only how you build your crew, but what Master you're taking in the first place.

Essentially I'd really like to see the balance addressed in such a way that an all-comer list approach is viable. Currently, I don't think it is for the majority of Masters.

It seems that this is at least on the slate with "balancing" Masters as well as streamlining Strategies and scheme sets. Will have to wait and see I suppose

I don't think this is going to happen. The game is designed from the ground up to be based around strats and schemes, and around building your crew to cater to the strategies and schemes available to you. All-comers lists are the opposite of that. With scheme pools and such coming in 2.0 I think that will be reinforced even more, not reversed.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Agreed. Also does there have to be official rules in order for you to make an all comers list? Just agree with your opponent to make you lists before finishing out what the strategies and schemes are, done. The game needs to put in official rules that encourages this for you to take advantage of it?

[Darguth]

Interesting. I'd like to see the opposite and the death of all-comers.

Strat/Scheme selection in light of crew construction is one of the aspects I really like about the game. All-comers are the opposite.

I have plenty of alternate game system choices where I can build all-comer lists all day long.

But, its just my personal preference that this game try to not be like other games in that regard.

My real problem with it is simply that we play multiple games but have a limited amount of time to meet-up and play. Crew selection at game start-up, rather than prior, really can slow things down. Not only do I have to select my models and select my schemes, but I now also have to decide if I want upgrades for any/all of my models?

That'll easily add 15-30 minutes to game start-up for people in my playgroup, I guarantee it. That's just another barrier against wanting to play, honestly. If it takes us 15 minutes to startup a game of Warmahordes compared to 30-45 minutes to start playing Malifaux, it's just more likely that we'll play Warmahordes because it's easier, faster, and we can possibly fit in a second game on our game nights.

I realize it's a preference, and I even mentioned in my first post that I may likely be in the minority, but it's my preference. So I decided to express it in a thread where I thought it might get the developer's attention so they can at least take it into account.

Agreed. Also does there have to be official rules in order for you to make an all comers list? Just agree with your opponent to make you lists before finishing out what the strategies and schemes are, done. The game needs to put in official rules that encourages this for you to take advantage of it?

Again, it's not just the rules, it's the balance of the game. If you don't design the models and their interactions around the viability of an all-comers format it's simply not going to be viable, and no one (including myself) is going to want to play in that contrived format if it's not well supported.

Now, I thought what I'd read is that there was going to be some kind of Standard vs. Narrative encounters. I was hoping that this was an indication that they are trying to cater to both of our preferences simultaneously. Which is why I broached the subject.

I'm fine and dandy if people prefer something other than me. More power to you. But I don't think it's out of line to state my preference, and you seem to be taking it almost personally.

I'm just saying that I've got a playgroup of at least 6-7 people that would loooove to play Malifaux, but that honestly the barrier of entry to even start a game usually encourages us to just doing something else. We honestly view it as more of a hassle than fun. Whether or not you agree that, that's our view and situation. So we've more or less stopped buying models and playing at all. I'm hoping the M2E will be able to rekindle our interest, and that's why I'm trying to figure out what to expect so that I can start possibly fanning those flames.

[decker_cky]

I'm a big fan of the list tailoring approach used in Malifaux. It makes for less 'ideal' model choices. If something is situational, there will be times when taking it makes sense, even if it's not covering a common weakness from an all-comer's perspective. It's one of the things making Malifaux unique in my mind.

Darguth: Seems to me like your gaming group could benefit from one of those RPG randomization tools to do all the strategy and scheme generation ahead of time. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to have someone mock up a script to draw a strat and email all players, then draw 5 schemes and email only the player who drew them. Show up at the game, set up terrain, draw for deployment and deploy.

[Soul Puppet]

Crew selection at game start-up, rather than prior, really can slow things down.

I tend to find that, after I've played with a particular Master for a while, I get to know what models I'm going to pick for each strategy. One of my club mates even keeps a little book with lists of what he's going to take in particular instances.

As we tend to go to tournaments too, this comes in exceptionally handy when you're on a limited time for the game.

[Gruesome]

My real problem with it is simply that we play multiple games but have a limited amount of time to meet-up and play. Crew selection at game start-up, rather than prior, really can slow things down. Not only do I have to select my models and select my schemes, but I now also have to decide if I want upgrades for any/all of my models?

That makes a lot of sense to me. Fortunately, I think some of it can be addressed pretty quickly. (Other bits I think are more a function of experience, so not really a quick fix)

I'd recommend downloading and sleeving the strat and scheme cards that you can get. Really helps speed things up without going to reference tables, etc.

If you have an idea or get things established via meetup, you can also simply pre-arrange.

In terms of crew building to the strat and schemes... That can be quick when you know your crew well, but I understand why that can be more difficult if you don't do it a lot.

What I tend to have is a core of models that I like for each of my masters and its really about what outlier scheme specific additions I am going to make.

So, what you can do in advance is just think through what masters you like for what strats and beyond that, what core 1-3 models you like with that master with that strat. Once you are used to that, its really just about knowing what schemes you like with the strats.

I view it like having a bunch of incomplete recipes that I tailor the spices to once I know more...

[Darguth]

So, what you can do in advance is just think through what masters you like for what strats and beyond that, what core 1-3 models you like with that master with that strat. Once you are used to that, its really just about knowing what schemes you like with the strats.

That sounds pretty reasonable, but it only works if everyone is just as willing to put in that forethought. Unfortunately, I know my playgroup and that's not the case I could be fully prepared and ready to go at a moment's notice, and they'll still spend 30+ minutes getting ready, or they might simply not want to play because it would take them 30+ minutes getting ready.

It's a viable workaround where I could essentially have myself prepared for nearly all situations, I fully agree, but it's treating the symptom and not the cause of the hang-up. It also still requires a relatively large degree of buy-in and effort to work, which is a stumbling block when trying to get (back) into the game. Particularly compared to other available options that we like playing as well.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Darguth

[decker_cky]

I'm curious...you say you're usually playing group games. That probably is adding 10 minutes to the setup too. More solo games probably make sense while still figuring out the game.

As to the treating the symptom and not the cause, I don't think that what you're complaining about is an issue per say. It's a feature which your group doesn't like, but that many consider integral to the game, possibly even a major draw. There will always be features that some like and others don't. Where you have a like-minded gaming group, it's appropriate to house rule how you play. It sounds to me like house ruling would be the best solution for your group.

[HalcyonSeraph]

That sounds pretty reasonable, but it only works if everyone is just as willing to put in that forethought. Unfortunately, I know my playgroup and that's not the case I could be fully prepared and ready to go at a moment's notice, and they'll still spend 30+ minutes getting ready, or they might simply not want to play because it would take them 30+ minutes getting ready.

It's a viable workaround where I could essentially have myself prepared for nearly all situations, I fully agree, but it's treating the symptom and not the cause of the hang-up. It also still requires a relatively large degree of buy-in and effort to work, which is a stumbling block when trying to get (back) into the game. Particularly compared to other available options that we like playing as well.

It sounds like you want the entire game to be redesigned from the ground up because your group considers 15 extra minutes of pre-game time a dealbreaker and refuses to do any of that setup beforehand, while also not being willing to simply play all-comers lists in a game not designed for it.

The game is set up a certain way. You can house rule that, or you can decide the game isn't what you are looking for and play something else. I'm not sure what outcome you are even looking for here.

[Darguth]

I'm curious...you say you're usually playing group games. That probably is adding 10 minutes to the setup too. More solo games probably make sense while still figuring out the game.

I'm not sure if I was unclear or how you might have misread my posts, but we definitely don't play many multiplayer games. I think we did a 2v2 once...maybe twice? The vast majority of our games have definitely been 1v1, though we haven't played in quite awhile (for the reasons I've laid out here, as well as some others but those seem to be in the pipe to be modified/fixed anyway).

[Guy in Suit]

Well currently I can flip for strats and schemes and choose a crew in less time than my friend can put one regiment of goblins on a movement tray, but YMMV I guess.

[Darguth]

...or you can decide the game isn't what you are looking for and play something else.

This is exactly what's happened, unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because we all would like to play the game because we love the fluff and the models, but the complexity to even start a game combined with some other factors (i.e. ambiguous rules, models that are walls-o-text, etc) just makes us say, "**** it, let's do something else."

We're adult hobbyists with plenty of disposable income. Wyrd is losing our business because of this. I expressed a preference/desire that would gain them more of our business. I don't think that's as unreasonable as many here seem to be suggesting.

I'm not sure what outcome you are even looking for here.

I think I stated that pretty clearly:

1.) Re-balance Masters and their available crews to be able to deal with any available Strategy on a much more even footing.

2.) Reduce the need for tailoring of crew lists and scheme selections so specifically, so as to reduce start-up time.

You may not agree with those wants, but they're far from unclear.

[Paddywhack]

That'll easily add 15-30 minutes to game start-up for people in my playgroup, I guarantee it. That's just another barrier against wanting to play, honestly. If it takes us 15 minutes to startup a game of Warmahordes compared to 30-45 minutes to start playing Malifaux, it's just more likely that we'll play Warmahordes because it's easier, faster, and we can possibly fit in a second game on our game nights.

Now, I thought what I'd read is that there was going to be some kind of Standard vs. Narrative encounters. I was hoping that this was an indication that they are trying to cater to both of our preferences simultaneously. Which is why I broached the subject.

You know you could try something like the Malifaux Encounter Generator (forget who made it, just have it bookmarked):

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67990595/MalifauxEncounterGenerator.html

It could greatly speed up pregame play as it does those flips for you. Printing out Strat/Scheme cards is a good idea too.

And you are not mistaken. I too heard that they will have a few well-balanced Shared strats to begin with. The more asymmetrical narrative style strats will come soon after. So hopefully with the reduced Core strats and the limited scheme pools you should be able to get pre-game done a little quicker.

I'm hopeful overall and if I can't get any games in I plan on focusing on painting.

[DeleteAccount]

Frankly, a big part of the game for me is "getting the list for the job", so yeah, I heavily disagree there and I'm sorry the game is not what you would like it to be, at least give the beta a look and see if you like what you see and if you don't, well, the market as never been as big.

[waiyuren]

Sadly these changes came a little (lot) too late for the game here.

Only two game stores in the entire country stocked Malifaux as far as i'm aware, and the game failed to take off.

James (My LFGS owner) won't be stocking Malifaux again, as once everybody that was interested bought in, sales dropped to zero.

I haven't played a single game in over a year...

[Claymore65]

About the whole "long preparation time" thing, I have some suggestions. I personally think that the "narrative" encounters might actually be exactly what you're looking for. Most likely, they will have a specific encounter in mind, if they are anything like the Halloween/Christmas encounters. If both players know the encounter, there won't be too many problems. All of those encounters were built so any general crew can play them pretty well. Sure, some crews are more suited to the scenario, but all of the special terrain is pre-rolled and the encounters are mostly fair for a "generalist" crew. Ideally, they could have a small pool of 4-7 schemes to choose from attached. All you would have to do is set up terrain (about the same amount of time for Warmahordes) and get to playing.

I'm fine with building more "generalist" style crews. My Freikorps team, for example, is versatile enough to handle most strategies well. If you don't have access to a lot of models (I don't have too many personally) you have to build more generalist style crews. If you have a decent crew built, you only have to change one or two things. Honestly, it's exactly the same as Warmahordes for me. I play casual games, so when I'm playing Cryx I might take certain models wheras when I'm fighting Cygnar I might take other ones. Otherwise, my list is exactly the same. My advice, if you don't want to do narrative encounters, is to simply use pre-built lists and set up the table. Determine strats/schemes right before you go, it really doesn't take long at all if you're list is mostly built. I think another option for M2.0 would be to have pre-built strats/schemes/terrain around a theme. For example, maybe you have a pre-built scenario called streetfight, with the shared-slaughter strategy, and only Assasinate, kill protegee and 2 others are available as schemes. It might have X has a pre-built terrain feature. All you would do is pick a pre-built scenario from the list, and you can go straight to playing (after terrain of course).

[Sniddy]

Somethings I have to point out

1.) Re-balance Masters and their available crews to be able to deal with any available Strategy on a much more even footing.

2.) Reduce the need for tailoring of crew lists and scheme selections so specifically, so as to reduce start-up time.

You may not agree with those wants, but they're far from unclear.

The game is not, and should not, be balanced on a master level but a faction level. Each faction can deal with each scenario....yeh thats a pain sometumes, other day I really fancied breaking out Levi...but ended up running the Vics...It can be hard in the growing stages of the game where people may only have 2 masters, but the game was never designed to be balanced as each master at each stratagy

And yeh I also like the tailoring, but I know what minions go with what strat for which master...do I take night terrors or waldergiest with Marcus, well if it's a speed strat then night terrors may be able to get objectives and get out, something more attrittion or killy the 'giest...so the start up time is minimal, heck setting up a warmahoards probbaly takes as much time - or similar enought it doesnt matter

Having the mix of so many minions and masters keeps things fresh, and sometimes doing random unexpected things to thow people - bringing the wrong master and playing things off key

[Gruesome]

That sounds pretty reasonable, but it only works if everyone is just as willing to put in that forethought. Unfortunately, I know my playgroup and that's not the case I could be fully prepared and ready to go at a moment's notice, and they'll still spend 30+ minutes getting ready, or they might simply not want to play because it would take them 30+ minutes getting ready.

I could understand that.

I guess to me that you could just tell them to bring all-comers then. And with your preparation and growing experience.. You can trounce them!

And then eventually maybe they thinks its worth thinking a bit in advance. You can only lead a horse to water...

Honestly, aside from a tournament, I seldom give any thought anymore prior to the game. (Some would argue DURING the game too)

When you have played the strats and schemes often enough, you know what you like for them. The only variables you need additionally account for is whether the enemy faction and schemes have anything you want to specifically deal with.

[fishtank]

Without having read through the thread and only having listened to four of the podcasts I am tentatively excited by M2E, with the associated nervousness that certain people who were great advocates of v1.5 are seemingly unimpressed by M2e, and the general worry that always accompanies edition shift.

However - there is one aspect that certainly worries me: I do not see how unrevealed schemes being worth a higher percentage of revealed schemes is going to make them more popular to competitive players. If I'm playing in a competitive environment I'm still going to reveal my schemes, because limiting my maximum score seems daft.

I like the idea of having five possible schemes drawn at random, but I think from that point schemes should be kept concealed as standard.

of course, this is a knee jerk reaction never having played M2E. I will try it as released when the time comes.

[Soul Puppet]

If I'm playing in a competitive environment I'm still going to reveal my schemes, because limiting my maximum score seems daft.

I decide whether to reveal or not based on my Opponent's crew. There are a lot of times when I'd rather go for the almost guaranteed point for an unrevealed Hold Out, than have my opponent sneak a lone model into my deployment zone in the last turn and I get nothing, for example.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I decide whether to reveal or not based on my Opponent's crew. There are a lot of times when I'd rather go for the almost guaranteed point for an unrevealed Hold Out, than have my opponent sneak a lone model into my deployment zone in the last turn and I get nothing, for example.

But playing for a max of 6 or 7 points when your opponent is playing for a max of 8 is usually too big a blow to make up for with that surprise.