Malifaux M2E: What's in a Score?

I was playing a game of Malifaux yesterday with a new player who has been coming by the past couple weeks to learn the ins and outs of M2E.  He took Jacob and I took Pandora.  We took one upgrade each, played at 40 stones, and went the full length with the strategy and scheme pool.

As a friend of mine said as he watched the end of the game, “Mike, it’s a good thing you’re not a henchman.”  What he meant by that was that I didn’t hold back a tremendous amount.  I didn’t go for the gut-wrenching, soul-crushing kill moves I do against veterans and people I know better, but I also didn’t put the kid gloves on.  I tried to win the game, and I did.

At the end of the game, as the dust settled, the score was 6-3 in my favor.  Had my opponent decided to play to max out his VPs with his last activation rather than take one last chance to axe one more of my models as the last round of the game slipped away, I would have won 6-5 instead.  So the outcome of the game didn’t hang in the balance – and on the whole, he chose the more fun, trash-talking-inducing move.

I bring all this up because it got me thinking.  At Dan’s suggestion, I started listening to the latest Gamers Lounge episode where Bill and Andrew chat about the virtues and flaws of the new edition of Malifaux.  I confess I am not far into the conversation yet, but one of the first topics slides straight into the recent experience I had in my game last night.

I played a player whose first game of M2E was a week prior and who had never seen Jacob’s cards before.  I, on the other hand, have been playing M2E longer than most, have played Pandora quite a bit, and had an exhaustive background in Malifaux.  And I only won the game 6-3.

To give some perspective, similar to Bill, I am used to situations from v1 Malifaux where I would come into a game against a less skilled opponent and quite easily walk away with an 8-0 or 8-2 victory.

So I have two questions:

First, why is it different in new Malifaux?

Second, is it a bad thing that a skill disparity does not lead to a huge score disparity?

The first question is easier to answer, and stems a lot from the way M2E was designed.  Strategies offer points at the end of most turns now instead of only at the end, so no longer can I wipe out your crew to prevent you from getting VPs.  Schemes offer a wider variety of points – they no longer come in an all-or-nothing set.  And because the game is only five turns, the rush for victory points starts almost immediately.

As for the answer to the second, it should come as no surprise that I do not think the closer scores is a bad thing.

I feel like in old Malifaux, the progression of score based on skill looked something like this:

I think in new Malifaux, it looks something like this:

In other words, there was a huge gap between the new players and the somewhat-skilled players, and a huge gap between the somewhat-skilled and the highly-skilled.  It made almost “tiers” of players.  At least it did in our playgroup.  If you went to an event and someone in a higher “tier” was playing, you had NO chance of walking away with the win unless they handicapped themselves in some way to try to even things out.

In the new Malifaux, I believe that the newer players hit the table with a higher level of understanding and skill in the game.  They’ll be playing at a disadvantage to other players, certainly, but the gap in what they can achieve is smaller.  Meaning the more skilled players have to continue to hone their craft to keep that edge.

In other words, in v1 Malifaux, if I had more skill than my opponent, I won flat out.  In v2, I still have to work for that win.  If I want to win games, I have to work to make sure I’m at the top of that curve, and even then I need to make sure that I’m doing things right throughout the whole game.

Some people don’t like that, and I understand.  I know there were opponents I could play blindfolded and still expect I had a good shot of winning.  Now I feel like every activation in the game could matter heavily.  It makes games more taxing to puzzle through at a high level, certainly, but that’s part of what I like about the game.  The feeling that everything I do matters.

Another advantage to the score system set up this way is that even if I reach a level of high skill, playing against players of lower skill still offers a challenge.  And the inverse, if I face a player who outstrips my skill level, I know I still have a chance against him.

Andrew mentioned in the Gamers Lounge that a single mistake against a less-skilled opponent cost him the game.  From the perspective of both the more skilled and the less skilled player, that seems a big boon to the game system.  Just because I have more games under my belt, or I know the rules better, does not mean I WILL win the game.  There is an advantage to that, but the advantage is lessened.

I guess the main point is that I think in-game skill becomes far more important than out-of-game skill.  I could be the most learned person about Malifaux, but if I cannot execute skillfully every activation, I’m going to suffer in my score.  Being learned gives me an edge, and having more experience gives me an advantage, but I still have to execute at the different phases of scoring:

1.       I have to gain points for my strategy every turn I can.

2.       I have to prevent my opponent from gaining points from his or her strategy every turn I can.

3.       I have to gain points for both of my schemes.

4.       I have to prevent my opponent from gaining points from both his or her schemes.  This can be harder since hidden schemes are more prevalent.

In order to win the game, I need to execute on three of these four phases.  It generally doesn’t matter which one I fall behind on, but I have to execute on three of them.

And it is HARD to execute on three of them.  If I execute on two of them and fail on the other two, we tie.  Executing on three of them gets me a closer victory.  And that’s what we’re seeing a lot of in M2E.

I’m sure that the scores will widen six months or a year down the road.  The pack of players will diversify enough that the hyper-skilled players will reveal themselves at the top of the curve, but I think that will be a smaller subset of players.  Or maybe we'll all realize that the player skill progression is exactly the same, but we were all sitting at the very smallest part of the very beginning of that progression right now, so we all had virtually the same level of skill right now.

All of this babble could be me talking crazy-talk.  Or it could turn out to be prophetic.  Time will tell, I guess.  In the meantime, I’ll keep enjoying Malifaux.  Hope you do too.

Malifaux M2E: How I Would Have Done Things Differently

The open beta for Malifaux v2 has finished, and the final documents are off to the printers.  It should be no surprise to anyone reading that I am happy with the final product and have moved full into M2E.  I have enjoyed being a part of the whole process, and seeing the number of changes that came through from the beginning of the open test through to the end makes me realize and appreciate how much Wyrd listens to their community.  Not everyone got everything they said realized, of course.  It’s impossible for that to happen when often people were saying contradictory things.  But overall, the final product looks good, I believe.

That said, the final product is not without its flaws.  Everything below is my opinion of course, and you are free to agree and disagree with what you like.  But I got to thinking, “It’s easy to complain about the way M2E turned out.  But how would I have done it differently if I was given full control over it?”

I put together a list of a lot of the changes that M2E saw.  Some I liked, some I don’t.  I’m not going to go to the full detail on everything.  Instead I’m going to try to hit a lot of the high-level changes or places that v1 was addressed and see what I would have done differently.

Upgrades

I’m going to go ahead and assume that upgrades have to be in the game.  It feels like Wyrd was pushing strongly for their inclusion.  If I had my way, we would not have upgrades, but given the idea that upgrades MUST be included, what would I have done differently with them?  Honestly, I think I would have done more of them.  There seem to be a very small selection of upgrades, and that leads to seeing the same ones over and over.  I would have liked to see almost double the number of upgrades.  I would have liked to see each subtype have more than one upgrade to boost the crew, but only allow one of them to be taken.  So you could take a Zoraida advanced-deploy forest crew, or a Zoraida super-sneaky forest crew.

I think I would also liked to have seen the Limited upgrades be better defined.  Ideally there would be about three per master, and each one gives a very distinct method for playing that master.  Rasputina could have the super-spell one to focus her in one avenue, the melee one to make her more rounded, or the ice armor one to boost her durability (the examples may not work out right, but the idea is there).  Then there would be the rest of the upgrades that could fill in the cracks and any version of Rasputina could take them.

As they stand, I just think there aren’t enough options to really flesh out the upgrades.

Pre-measuring

It’s no surprise that I would not change anything about it from what we ended with in M2E.  I like pre-measuring.  I always have.  Keep it and move on.

Card Format

Moving to normal sized cards was a great idea.  Not having to laminate all my cards makes me a happy camper.  It was expensive and frustrating.

I also like that the Master cards are all on one card.  I didn’t like it when Warmachine moved to the two-card Warcasters.

Strategy / Schemes

I actually like the new scheme setup.  I like the scheme pools, and I like the volume of schemes available.  I liked having faction-specific and master-specific schemes from v1, but the loss of them is more than outweighed by the gain of the scheme pool.

I have a love/hate with the new strategies.  I dislike that there are so few of them.  And I dislike that they are not asymmetrical.  That said, I think they work well the way that they are.  With the increased focus on schemes, they fill in my asymmetrical fix.

The idea behind strategies has changed a bit too.  They took a page from Gaining Grounds in that they score at every turn, which I like (though as someone mentioned before, it does make tracking it more annoying).  And they allow both players to score at the same time, which I like.  Gaining Grounds has a binary method of scoring – if I get a point, you don’t.  To me that felt too forced and reduced the number of things I had to do during the game – it simplified things too much and removed more of the asymmetrical nature of the game.  By me achieving my strategy, I automatically stop you from achieving yours.  Now, I really have to figure out where my effort comes in.  I have to achieve both my schemes, stop both yours, achieve my strategy, and stop yours.  In order to win a game, I generally have to win three out of those four slots.  In the past, I had to win two out of the three slots: achieve my schemes, stop yours, or achieve my strategy.  The game feels like it forces harder decisions on going for tactical positioning, VPs, or VP denial much more than it did in the past.

One other thing I’ve noticed in the change to allow both players to score on strategies is that games feel much closer than they had in the past.  Good players will generally beat not-so-good players still, but there feels more of a challenge.

Extra AP

I’m going to have to part company with Wyrd at this one as well.  It seems that extra AP have largely been removed from the game, which is a shame, I think.  I don’t think there should have been as much handed out as in v1, but I think there should be more than is in v2.  I think there should honestly be a flat cut-off in stones.  Up through 6 stones, you get no extra AP.  7-9, you get a conditional extra AP (be that a spell as a (0) like Leap, or taking wounds or ditching cards for a move, etc.).  And then at 10+, you should always get an unconditional extra AP.

Terrifying / Horror

Back into Wyrd’s camp, I’m glad to see that Terrifying has changed from what it was.  First, the rule is much easier to remember now.  Every time terrifying would come up, I would have to reference the rules manual to remember specifically what happened.  Was I terrified in my activation or out of it?  How does that differ?  Now it’s streamlined and easier to remember.  It’s weaker than it was before.  And the number of things it impacts has expanded (Horror targets specific types of models based on the model that has it, and it says it clearly).

Ranged Attacks

Ranged attacks are an odd thing.  Their overall strength feels like it dropped a little (from a Guild perspective… fewer auto-crits), but the ranges have increased.  Personally, I do not like snipers that can hit the other deployment zone from their own off the bat.  I would prefer to see them shorter range but with From the Shadows or something like that.

Sonnia and Rasputina saw nice bumps in the ranges of their spells too, which instinctively I dislike.  I liked Malifaux being a melee-centric game where getting in close was the path to victory.

Now I also understand I am a Neverborn player so my desire for melee is certainly biased.

And thinking back to v1, I did not find Sonnia, Perdita or Rasputina to be particular challenges, so seeing their range power increase makes sense.

At the end of the day, I probably would not have adjusted the ranged elements much, and I may have been in error not to do so because I don’t think the adjustments make any of the benefitting masters too powerful.  The spot I would have done things differently is with the snipers.  How?   I think I would have started by giving them all From the Shadows, decreasing their range to the 16” area, allowing them all to ignore cover, and letting their focus be treated as a double-focus, or maybe give them a +1/+1/+2 damage as well when they focus.

Spells as duels

This was a good idea.  Having different duel rules for spells and other attacks was unnecessary.  There are some complaints about spells still having TNs that must be met, and the wonky interaction between the spell cheating when you’re not meeting the spell’s TN, but I can’t figure out how that’s anything other than an advantage to the person resisting the spell.  If I spend a card when you’re not meeting the TN yet, and you decide not to cheat to meet the TN, guess what… I stopped your spell.  Isn’t that what I was trying to do anyway?  If I don’t really care if your spell goes off, I won’t spend the card to try to stop it.  Same with other attacks.

Number of turns

Knowing then what I know now, I would have put this change in straight away.  I never would have thought to do so – six turns felt like something that would never really be changed – but the fact that they did completely changed the game for the better for me.  No longer am I trying to kill all your models and then get my objectives.  If I try that now, I run out of time.  I have to focus on everything all game, which brings in the tough choices I mentioned earlier of jockeying for position versus getting VPs now.

Charges

With changes to the extra AP as shown above, I would leave Charges the way they were.  I don’t like the two attacks on a charge – it weakens a lot of the positioning elements of Malifaux.  If I have a sword that pushes you away, it’s no longer as useful as you can still just charge back in and get two attacks.

Soulstones

This is another of those things like the number of turns that I would never have thought to do, but now that it’s done, I never want to go back.  The number of times a game has come down to me and my opponent sending our masters at each other, both having the cheat, and then it just comes down to who flips higher on the stone.  And like that… Lilith dies to the Vicks because two soulstones flipped low for her, even though she should have the advantage on defense over them.

The counter-argument is that now the game comes down to who has the higher cheat or the higher stats.  And I agree – it largely does in those situations.  But if I don’t have the cheat, I won’t send my model into the fray.  I’ll protect it instead.  If I have a Ml4, I won’t go after your Df7 even if I have an 11 in my hand.  It’s just poor planning.

Additive soulstones used to be able to mask bad tactics.  I flipped better on my soulstone than you did, so my questionable move worked.  No longer.  Now you have to plan things better and not just hope for a lucky flip.

Effects

Standardizing them as Conditions is a fantastic change.  Can’t really argue with that.

Model updating

This is mostly a love.  I initially hated how few abilities there were on models, though once I started playing them I found that I didn’t really miss much, and the things I did miss could be bought back in upgrades from the extra stones a game provided.  I think the game needed to have a lot of its extra rules pulled out.

I don’t understand the whole idea of “the soul of the model is gone”.  I have yet to find a model that, when its v1 was boiled down, did not virtually match the v2 when boiled down.  In some cases, I feel like the new version of the model (Lilith, Seamus) matches closer to what the fluff portrays the character as.

A lot of similar abilities got condensed into a single rule type, which also helps with not having to remember the minor differences between the rules.  Another plus.

Damage / Wounds

Eliminating the extra step of moving damage to wounds so that Object and Armor, and various triggers, don’t get confusing was another good move.  It was an extra step that got added in at some point because of some wonky rules interactions.  Better to have it all streamlined.

Game Size

The soulstone size of the game has increased, but I haven’t been playing with many more models.  That game says it’s based around 41-50 stones or so.  Personally, I prefer playing in the 41-45 stone range, but I liked it back at 30 stones most before.  It feels pretty similar.

With the added upgrades and increased cost of most models, I think increasing the stone size is a good move.  It doesn’t feel like Warmachine when they increased the game size going to Mk2 – the game still feels the same size.

A lot of people have been talking about how the game now encourages swarm-type armies.  The higher soulstone cost, increased focus on interacts, and decreased AP on higher stone models means that more AP are more useful.  I haven’t found that to be the case necessarily.  Starting with 10 models is all fine and good, except that I can generally kill off one or two of them a turn with part of my heavier crew, while getting objectives with my other grabbers.

Most models will have about 10 AP a game at most.  Masters will have about 15.  Looking at it from a pure numbers standpoint is going to give a false image of the game, I think.  If you have 10 models, you’ll have about 105 AP in that game, right?  If I have only 6, I end up with 65.  That means I’m going to lose, right?  Well, not necessarily.  Some of your models may have only 4 AP used before they’re dead, and they’ll be dying quicker.  And at the end of the day, most schemes will only need 3-4 AP spent on interacts at most.  There’s not that high a percent of your AP whether it’s 65 or 105 AP max in your crew.

I may eat my words in the long run, but I don’t see any more need for swarms now than I did in v1.

Anywho, I’ve said more than I intended.  If you’re still reading, congratulations.  I would’ve tuned myself out long ago.  Until next time!

Steam Summer Sale - Or "Why I Hate Slaz"

I generally try to limit myself to 3-4 new video games a year.  I don’t end up playing a ton over the course of time, so I figure if I can just play the ones I get and not spread out too much from there, I should be fine.

Then one of my friends, Slaz, tossed a wrench in that plan.  He introduced me to the Steam Summer Sale.

I’m a PC gamer all the way.  I tried consoles from time to time but they’re never as fun to me as PC gaming.  I don’t really know why that is.  I just hate working with consoles.  So when Steam, the online PC gamers haven, puts up new games during the year, I keep a passing eye on them.  Little did I know that during the summer they would tempt me with all manner of great deals.

Back as I was finishing up Mass Effect 3 again, Dan told me that I should try out Bioshock Infinite.  I pushed him aside saying I would wait until it came down in price.  I figured that would buy me a year or so before going through the game.  What happened next?  Steam Summer Sale.  The bane of my gaming existence.

So I picked up Bioshock Infinite at 50% off.  While I was at it, they also had the Walking Dead computer game, which I had heard great things about, for 75% off.  So that went in the cart.  And then there was this interesting-looking Sim game called Anno 2070 for under $10.  With James, my new son, just being born I was looking for a fun game I could play one-handed.  So that went in the cart.

The next day I picked up some DLC for Skyrim and managed to avoid buying anything more (though there were a couple things of interest).

After spending some time cursing Slaz’s name, he took pity on me and picked up System Shock 2 for me, as well as the Alan Wake franchise.

Here I am, less than a week into the sale, and already with five games now in my queue to play.  Damn you, Slaz.

I’ve only been able to play a couple of them so far. 

First, Bioshock.  I have to say, I am very happy to have picked up this game.  The plot is a twisting maze of confusion and mystery.  I am about half-way through, Dan tells me, and every step I’m taking drags me deeper into the storyline, trying to figure out how it all works together.  I am not a huge fan of the gameplay, though it’s certainly not the worst I have dealt with before.  The lack of saving frustrates me.  It auto-saves at random times, which might have done fine for me in the past, but when my gaming time is dictated by when my son isn’t screaming his head off, I don’t always have time to reach the next save point before having to shut down the game and move on.

Second, Anno 2070.  This one hit the top of my list because it’s a one-handed game that’s not too loud, so I can play it while holding James in my other arm.  It was a bit light on teaching you how to play the game (there was a tutorial in the game, but it’s not easy to find) so I had to spend the first few hours bumbling through it.  Now I’m starting to get the hang of it, though, and am enjoying it.  Basically it’s a city-building game in the year 2070.  Oceans have grown and you have to build trade between different cities on different islands in order to keep them all functioning well.  You can build underwater as well, and there will be other groups out there you can find and trade with too.

Once I’m done with Bioshock, I’ll see where I end up next.  Walking Dead seems like a good stop, though I may jump over to System Shock or Alan Wake.  And all of these have to be done before I can head back to Fallout 3 to play all the DLC I got for them.  Or the new DLC I got for Skyrim.    I hate you, Slaz.