What wins games in M2E

[chris_havoc]

Having read through the old thread posted about this topic I am curious what people think about Malifaux now that the 2nd edition rules have been released. Unfortunately, I can only speak from a position of the latest Beta, however, I doubt that the changes have been so severe that the gameplay has been changed completely.

For me the core things that win games are most certainly skill and knowledge of the game. The former slightly more so than the later. Experience I think is more a combination of those two things than its own separate category. Luck definitely has a place but I would say to a much lesser extent than either of the other things. All this is based on the idea that both you and your opponent are not tired or distracted because both will affect the outcome too.

Skill:

I would classify this as your tactical ability and anything to do with player choice. So how you use your opponents' mistakes to turn a bad situation. The ability to prevent an opponent scoring points is also a huge part of this. Also managing your luck comes into skill. Have you flipped or are you holding any of the jokers? If no, then a risk may not be worth it. If yes you can judge the result. The same applies to a bad hand. It means that the deck is stacked in your favour. Resource management and timing are also massively important factors in terms of skill. Skill and knowledge of the game definitely overlap at a lot of levels but they are different enough that without the skill to take advantage of your knowledge you are at a disadvantage against a player who has little knowledge of the game but ability to adjust as they learn.

Knowledge:

This is pretty straight forward. Knowing the rules is massively important to winning games. Knowing both what your models can do and what your opponents models can do puts you at a great advantage. If you have the skill to apply the knowledge obviously. Also being able to match up what schemes/strategies best suit which models is probably more knowledge than skill though and would maybe rather fall under experience. The sum is definitely greater than it's parts regarding knowledge and skill. So basically experience is the most important thing but it is compromised of skill and knowledge which occur in many ways that I have not even scratched the surface of.

Luck:

Terrain placement and who chooses sides come down to luck often but good placement can mitigate this issue. With the new chain activation rules initiative doesn't have the potential to be quite so devastating though bad placement and risky play can leave you exposed in this regard. Also now in M2E the fact that you can't choose schemes from all schemes means that on occasion you won't get schemes that suit a strategy or your play style but that is quite obviously mitigated by experience (i.e. skill and knowledge). There are several reasons luck can win a game but it will be very rare that it is ONLY luck that wins a game. However I would say that almost as much of the skill comes in with managing your luck as it does in playing your opponent simply because you need to know how to do this in order to really play your opponent on your terms. The great thing about Malifaux is that during a turn the odds are not reset as they are with dice games. If you do have a bad hand and you have been flipping badly each bad flip gives you better chance of flipping high on your next interaction. Unless you are very unlucky and flipping high/low on the wrong actions. Also a bad hand means that after shuffling you can discard and re-draw hands and better your odds for the next turn. Jokers can turn a game around but whether they win a game is unlikely unless you are flipping an unusual amount of them.

Please feel to disagree with me but I would very much like to hear what you guys think. I obviously didn't include everything I think is pertinent either.

[doubledragon]

I agree with all the above. Except I think one thing is missing - The size of the players model selection.

One thing that occurred to me when reading this is that, players with a larger selection of models (masters and their crews) within in one faction definitely have a much bigger advantage (especially in tournaments) now than they did in ME1.

I say this because of the fact that you now choose your schemes from a much smaller, randomly determined pool. If you get unlucky and happen to flip all schemes that require a fast crew, or all schemes that require a "killy" crew, or all schemes that require a objective marker heavy crew, and you do not have many models that fit these requirements, you are going to have a hard time no matter how skilled/lucky/knowledgable you are. This is assuming that you and your opponent are on the same level of skill and knowledge. If he/she has a better/larger pool of models to select from, he/she will have an advantage.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Assuming that is true, which it may or may not be, it also gives dual faction masters even more advantage as well, as they have a larger amount of possible models and combos to draw from.

[mythicFOX]

When people first started playing Malifaux the ‘suitcase’ approach was a concern. I have to say that in all my tournament play (several years now), I've never seen a correlation between collection size and tournament results.

If anything I’d suggest players who know a select pool of models really well have done better than those with a larger pool of models they’re less practiced with. I’m fairly confident that I can compete at events from a pool of twenty arcanist models (inc two masters). I’ve blogged about it here. </plug>

That said M2e is uncharted territory so who really knows?

[Ausplosions]

When people first started playing Malifaux the ‘suitcase’ approach was a concern. I have to say that in all my tournament play (several years now), I've never seen a correlation between collection size and tournament results.

If anything I’d suggest players who know a select pool of models really well have done better than those with a larger pool of models they’re less practiced with. I’m fairly confident that I can compete at events from a pool of twenty arcanist models (inc two masters). I’ve blogged about it here. </plug>

That said M2e is uncharted territory so who really knows?

Agreed.

I have placed in tournaments with a 55ss pool of models, but only used the same 35ss the whole time.

Model collection does not contribute all that much.

[EnternalVoid]

What wins games in Malifaux 2E? Easy, Victory Points. I know that sounds like the simple stupid answer but it is the most correct answer. It all comes down to accumulating Victory Points and being able to deny your opponent Victory points in such a way that you end up with the higher total. The question instead becomes how you reach this point and that is more what the OP was directed towards.

Now I agree with much of the OP’s assessment at this time, the factors listed lead towards this one pursuit. All of them funnel to the goal. I think the OP did a pretty good job splitting the elements into understandable divisions. I see no real cause to nitpick the divisions save for one, Luck. I feel that your assessment of it is perhaps a bit too optimistic.

I disagree with the assessment; “Jokers can turn a game around but whether they win a game is unlikely unless you are flipping an unusual amount of them.” I would say about a third to half the time a Joker flip is critical to the flow of the game. A single one can often change your chances of winning but a significant degree. They are often the only elements that reverse a situation where you have used your abilities to stack it in your favor. It can make the game change as radically as a Knight in chess suddenly for a single move to be able to act like a Bishop. Also while a bad hand might mean your deck has more good cards lurking in it, if they don’t show up significantly enough till the turn is 85% over and you have suffered the whole time getting those cards likely will not be enough to reverse the flow of the turn. This is more prominent when your opponent starts eliminating your models, more so if they have not activated yet. The loss of potential and AP is a critical element in a game.

I would argue that Luck might be the most Critical of your three elements as it can bridge the gap between the tactical abilities of two players. Your abilities can only compensate for Luck, whether minimizing it or trying to take it into account, so much. Luck on the other hand can cripple and make a mockery of any tactics. The amount of skill and knowledge it takes if Luck is significantly against you is staggering. Even a little shift in the balance of Luck can make the opponent with the stronger abilities the one struggling.

Now to be fair, you can’t control your Luck per say. You can try to predict the possible turns, potential pitfalls, figure odds, and lay your plans in ways to try and give yourself some cushion for variance but in the end unless you have literally stripped all possibility out of your way it can still turn on you. And even when you do strip the possibility, it is generally for a moment or two as the whole scenario will change on you all so quickly. I rather like a saying I saw at a Jimmy Johns once, “It is not always going to be a Sunny Day. Sometimes you are the pigeon, sometimes you are the statue.”

If I had to name any of those abilities king I would say it is Luck, because unlike the other two you can’t improve them or even properly evaluate your own. At least with Skill and Knowledge if you are honest with yourself you can judge and do self-evaluation. That said Luck is not nearly so random and wide of a variance in Malifaux then it is in some other games that use dice but I feel that many Malifaux players underscore luck in the game because of the card system.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

Agreed.

I have placed in tournaments with a 55ss pool of models, but only used the same 35ss the whole time.

Model collection does not contribute all that much.

I am going to add one note in this; I do think Model Collection is a contributor but using it is part of Knowledge and Skill. If in M1.5 you had Colette, Angelica, a single performer and mannequin, some ice gamin and a golem, and no Doves, I think your model Pool is a Very big factor.

It is less the width and spread of your model pool as it is having the options present in your model pool. If your pool just lacks speed or any possible options of speed and you end up in a game where it is essential, you got an uphill struggle. But if your Model Pool is small but well-structured it is another story entirely, you are effectively making tools and options available. Thus if you have the skill and knowledge you can build your model pool into a smaller but well oiled selection.

[chris_havoc]

@EnternalVoid:

I think that you may be right to a degree but even if you are incredibly lucky you won't beat someone who is as much more skilled and knowledgeable than you are more lucky. I think if two opponents would find themselves in a stale mate or at least closely matched then luck would play more of a destabalizing role. But like someone said in the other forums it SUCKS when people blame bad luck for losing rather than acknowledge skill. I know I have been guilty of that but in dice games the legitimacy of this complaint is far greater. I also find I play to the jokers... if I know the Black Joker hasn't come out I enter duels expecting to fail. That way I manage my expectations and also play in such away that incurs acceptable losses. Another thing is that in terms of resource management exhausting your opponents resources is as much a part of the skill. Doing so forces unmitigated chance flips so they HAVE to rely on luck instead of being able to mitigate it. I've had games where luck was certainly on my side and then it turned in my opponents favour and still won and vice versa. If I am in a position in m2e (not m1e) that even an alpha strike decimates my crew due to some luck then I've not positioned myself very well and given my opponent something to exploit. Maybe it is more important than I originally outlined but a massive reason I moved away from other games systems to Malifaux was that luck played second fiddle to skill and knowledge.

@Ausplosions:

I do agree that knowing your models is more likely to put you in good standing but I think that tends to be true of masters that synergize better with a core group of models. Which is why a dual faction master wouldn't be at an advantage because they are likely not to function as well without that core set that will be taken anyway with a few spaces for outside models. But at least in m1e the pool did seem to matter. Not having Shikome for Marcus was a pretty big handicap as I understand it and if you were to buy and play with some of the starter sets I would say some would definitely put you in better stead than others. I'm not sure this is as much the case in m2e. Although it can mean you may have to use some models that may not be great at the schemes or strategy flipped.

[Dracomax]

@chris. I disagree with you about luck. I say this solely because I have seen games in which a superior army with better skill have been destroyed by an army that statistcally should lose out to them 60+% of the time. Luck is a huge factor that can sometime be accommodated, but if you are having trouble drawing anything higher than an 8, and the opponent is drawing at least 2-3 higher than you on every draw(seriously, over a series of 5+ games, it was pretty consistant), the only strategic choice you have is to try to ignore them--which often doesn't help much. I have seen an entire crew fail to kill(or even hit) a totem with average stats.

I'm not saying that luck is always a big issue, but to say that it isn't ever, or even often the deciding factor just ignores the fact that everything in the game relies on luck to one extent or the other, and having a bad luck night can massively hurt you beyond anything that skill can fix.

[nilus]

When people first started playing Malifaux the ‘suitcase’ approach was a concern. I have to say that in all my tournament play (several years now), I've never seen a correlation between collection size and tournament results.

Yeah this was always something I saw on the forums as a worry, but never really saw it in play.

The best players I have seen generally created 2 or 3 lists that could cover any situations and played the hell out of them. The guy with every model but no plan didn't really have an edge, all he/she did was slow down setup with to many choices

[EnternalVoid]

I wanted this to be short but after looking at it and coming back I don’t see a way to make it short and get my thoughts across complete enough.

@chris

Perhaps I failed to make my point clear enough, it is entirely possible. I am not saying that Luck alone rules the day. But where the impression that I got from reading your posts is that you felt that Luck was the minority of the three; that is what I disagree with. I believe it is the strongest of them. Unless you take variability out of a game entirely and end up with something more like checkers or chess, Luck will have its hand in the game. I will agree that Malifaux is less influenced by it then some other dice based games, but with the amount and range of variables with the deck system it still plays a Very strong influence. Malifaux is still very much a luck based game, just that more so than many other games you can try to hedge your bets. But in the end you are still betting.

It is that of the three, luck is the one that is the hardest to control, gauge, and deal with. But I was doing that back in games like Mordheim, Confrontation, Savage Skirmish, Fantasy, 40k, Warmachine, Hordes, Necromunda, Monsterpocolye, Horrorclix, and several other games. In all those games I sought to stack my odds so that the chance of failure was reduced as much as I could. But sometimes those dice decided it was time for that 1 in 216 to come up at the most important roll.

It is not to say that the total sum of your tactical ability can't play to minimize the effects of back luck, or that your ability can't beat someone that has been having better luck then you. I have won plenty of games where my opponents were on a lucky streak. The difference was that I had to struggle for a victory where under more even balance of luck I would have felt in control the entire time and confident. Your last post brought up expecting to fail because you had not flipped the black joker yet and having to make plans for it. I acknowledged that stuff in my post, but the problem is you can only safeguard so much, build so many buffers and fall backs into those plans, but you do have limited resources and despite decks having set cards there are countless combinations between you and your opponent’s decks that will nick away at your plans with each step till they start to fall apart. You flip that 12, he flips a 13. You both flip a 1 but he is the attack at the moment with the same stats, you flip the red joker to get the hit, but then flip the black joker on damage thus ruining the value the red joker had brought. There are countless combinations between two decks and unlike playing War, there are times where you are effectively flipping against yourself and your deck can betray you with needless wasting of valued stock.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am actually the Tactical one in my group. I am the guy that can tell you your models’ stats and abilities without using the cards. I can also start dismantling your crew’s playbook just by looking at them the selection. But because of this I can also see just how critical luck is. Many people with Malifaux trick themselves over luck because of that deck of cards. But it suffers from some of the same issues as dice, but possible worse in some regards. It all comes down to getting the right results at the right time, the important points were critical moments hang in the balance. Rolling a 12 on two dice when you just needed a 5+ is not as important as failing that 3+ on two dice. Flipping needlessly high cards at unimportant times or the lowest of cards in the important ones can turn the concept of a deck against you. You flip half your face cards with in the first few models of turn 2 and you can suddenly find yourself grasping at tactical straws to reverse your fate as none of those flips were nearly as important as the ones coming later in the turn. Or because you had double positive to hit you flipped a 10, 12, and a 13.

In my opinion just like in most table top wargaming, Malifaux is a luck based game tempered with tactics and skill. In a match between two players of similar tactical ability and not making mistakes it will be the one which had luck factored in at the most key points that win. In a match between two players of different tactical ability without any clear mistakes it will be the superior player as long as he can avoid losing to many of those key points due to luck. The weaker player might have to win more of those key points or in more significant ways but because of luck they are still in the running despite the gap. Just that the larger the gap the greater the unbalance needs to be.

[SoulG]

Hrm... Top 3 factors?

Focus on gaining and denying VP.

Foresight to predict plans and counterattacks.

Fortune to keep the cards in your favor.

When I trounce someone, its usually because they didn't focus on the most efficient way to gain or lose VP in the situation. Alternatively, they lacked the foresight to understand how I could counter their moves. If all of that is equal, it usually comes down to who draws better at the right times.

Man, mine is too simple. I feel left out when juxtaposed against those other posts. Maybe I should filibuster of something. :/

[EnternalVoid]

Hrm... Top 3 factors?

Focus on gaining and denying VP.

Foresight to predict plans and counterattacks.

Fortune to keep the cards in your favor.

When I trounce someone, its usually because they didn't focus on the most efficient way to gain or lose VP in the situation. Alternatively, they lacked the foresight to understand how I could counter their moves. If all of that is equal, it usually comes down to who draws better at the right times.

Man, mine is too simple. I feel left out when juxtaposed against those other posts. Maybe I should filibuster of something. :/

To be honest I like this one despite being simple.

[Omenbringer]

To be honest I like this one despite being simple.

And pretty much the same stuff that would win games in the first edition of the game.

[Forar]

I have certainly seen situations where collection size mattered; knowing an opponent only has 1 or 2 masters of a given faction and even a vague idea of what those masters specialize/excel at means that declaring said faction for a given encounter gives your opponent a significant amount of information. Now, sure, you can get into mind games where you intentionally pick the wild card or even sub-optimal choice, in the hopes that said opponent over-commits to trying to tailor an optimal counter list to what they expect of you, but at the end of the day, each master has their own strengths and weaknesses, and not having the strongest master for movement or killing can be a disadvantage, just as having them can be an advantage.

It doesn't guarantee you a win, but having a broader toolbox from which to choose the optimal pieces can certainly help.

Making the right choices remains important, and there will always be other factors involved such as terrain, the cards flipped and drawn, hell even how rested one is and their emotional state, but I wouldn't disregard it as a non-issue either. It's just something that people either have as an advantage or not.

Some tournaments combat this by restricting the figures allowed, but that still permits an edge with the ability to pick what one feels is an optimal X SS out of their larger collection, versus the above noted player who theoretically has to pool everything they have, optimal or not, just to meet the number.

[Adran]

Collection size does matter, but it is in ever decreasing amount. So whilstif I own all the guild and you just own Lady Justice's crew box I have a signifigant advantage, but every model you add to your collection will eat into my advantage signifigantly

If you own the Justice crew box, and I own the Justice crew box and 1 box of witchling stalkers, I have a slight adavantage over you.

If I own the entire Guild range, and you own the entire guild range except the Govonors proxy, then my advantage over you is virtually non existant.

Basically if you have a well thougth out selection of models, of about twice the size of the game you intend to play, then even if your opponent owns the whole range, they will only have a very slight advantage over you, if any.

And, as peopel that have played against me will testify, owning everything can easily lead to wild ideas of combinations that you just feel you have to try, where as a smaller pool of models you know well will lead to understandign of what works and what doesn't. (too much choice and information can be a bad thin as well even for more sensible people than me. You can only know so much and bee good with so much, sure in time you can understand a larger pool of models well enough to counter that, bu**** not just collection size, its knowign how to use what you own, and a player with a smaller collection and a similar time to learn it, can easily have built a good collection for their styel).

[chris_havoc]

@EternalVoid: Sorry for my late reply. I do agree that luck is a huge factor and maybe it is more important than I have stated. But for me comparing Malifaux to a game like Warhamer that uses dice is like comparing say Poker and Roulette. OK Warhammer isn't quite as random as Roulette but my point is that all you can do is determine the odds of success when you are rolling for or against something. Granted you can refuse engagements and the like but you are restricted to whatever dice you roll when you do engage. Sure there are re-rolls and things but you are still playing the odds passively because you have to see what you will roll before you can say you have succeeded.

In Malifaux it is different, obviously, because of the control hand and because the odds are only reset at the beginning of each turn and even then less drastically than it is dice roll to dice roll because of keeping or discarding cards in hand at the beginning of the next turn. So you can bluff your hand or coax your opponent into playing high or low and the like. So you're not only playing the odds of success you are betting your odds against your opponent's skill to read what you are doing. Yes, this happens in warhammer but only on the level of gameplay not at the level of the dice mechanic. You can't bluff what dice you will play for example. So what I am saying is that in Malifaux there is the ability to actively alter the odds of the game by cheating in cards or tricking an opponent into cheating a card or thinking you have cards to cheat.

So I do agree that flipping high or low at inopportune times is similar to rolling badly BUT flipping those cards informs you of the odds of them coming up again unlike dice games where the odds reset every roll. So it is an added facet to the game that you can play as though the odds suit you or not and surprise your opponent with the opposite. I've had a handful of 6 cards with the highest being a 5 or 6 playing Lynch but because I have a full hand my opponent hesitates to attack me. I've also used Misaki to the opposite effect where the opponent has a very strong hand but a model they want to keep alive with a df stat lower than her ml. So I cheat in a medium crow for the autokill trigger meaning he either wastes a higher card to negate the autokill effect or doesn't and wastes two of his good cards and takes damage. I am totally willing to accept the fact that chance can still very much screw you over but the better you are at playing the less likely this will happen in any game but most particularly Malifaux because of the control hand.

[BollaertN]

I would agree that size of model collection probably makes a difference in that if you constantly play the same crew, your usual opponents will start catering their crews to counter yours, etc.

[Dracomax]

Also, keep in mind that someone with a small crew collection they know well will often have an advantage over someone with a large selection they kind of know, even if the guy with the large selection is able to tailor their crew to the scenario better.

[Guy in Suit]

SoulG nailed it - couldn't have said it better myself, but I might put card-control second beyond predictability. (I think it is harder to do well, especially under pressure in a tournament.)

Except at the very smallest collection sizes - like when you are first starting - collection size doesn't matter. Anyone who disagrees can have a look at my trophy case. :Rat_RedPaint:

[dgraz]

Anyone who disagrees can have a look at my trophy case. :Rat_RedPaint:

Braggart!

[Soul Puppet]

I managed 80% of my first edition tournament time using just the Showgirls and the rest using Rasputina with themed models. I did okay and never felt outclassed by someone else's superior collection.

M2E is a different kettle of fish but I'm fairly confident that this would still be the case. I think knowing how a few models work really well and adapting them to the situation is far preferable to having too much choice (unless you have Rain Man-like abilities anyway).

For me the Chain Activation is possibly the best change to Malifaux and prevents a significant amount of the old Alpha Strike stuff that used to go on. This in turn helps mitigate a lot of other issues.

Perhaps not wise of me to admit this, since I'm going to defend my title at the UK Masters in less than two weeks, but my big tournament weakness in both editions of the game is time management. When a game is played to conclusion it's fine but if it only gets to Turn 3 or 4, I often slip up. This comes under the Focus section that SoulG mentions above..

[Dracomax]

I managed 80% of my first edition tournament time using just the Showgirls and the rest using Rasputina with themed models. I did okay and never felt outclassed by someone else's superior collection.

M2E is a different kettle of fish but I'm fairly confident that this would still be the case. I think knowing how a few models work really well and adapting them to the situation is far preferable to having too much choice (unless you have Rain Man-like abilities anyway).

For me the Chain Activation is possibly the best change to Malifaux and prevents a significant amount of the old Alpha Strike stuff that used to go on. This in turn helps mitigate a lot of other issues.

Perhaps not wise of me to admit this, since I'm going to defend my title at the UK Masters in less than two weeks, but my big tournament weakness in both editions of the game is time management. When a game is played to conclusion it's fine but if it only gets to Turn 3 or 4, I often slip up. This comes under the Focus section that SoulG mentions above..

I think you also have to play different if you expect it won't get beyond round 3 or 4. You can get away with some more agressive play that would lose if you had another 1-2 rounds, for instance. OTOH, you have to play more agressive, because if you don't, you won't have the points when it comes down to it.