Jump to content

Walpurgis masters and pool size.


Veskit

Recommended Posts

With MaliIaux what are people's thoughts on pool sizes and whether we keep the single master focus.

 

Currently when i have been playing games I have been focusing on a single master for familiarity purposes even though I have every resser master.  I personally don't see open faction as much of an issue anymore with models having a lot more versatility (ie not as specialised to specific masters)

 

I am in the process of planning this year's Walpurgis and the topic of pool sizes has come up.  

 

With 50ss being the new 35ss this makes the 45ss at last year about 65ss making a 55ss pool about 80ss of available models. And then how do we treat upgrades? Are the part of that pool? 

 

If people are against open faction what about 2 master out of the same faction?

 

 

Any rate i am looking for feedback on what people would like to see on these regards.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to get my head around the way the game plays now and what a good scheme would be as well. I was thinking. 70 ss of models, then allowing all the upgrades ie the upgrades don't count into the pool. If wanting to allow multiple masters maybe charge them at 10 ss in the pool and keep the upgrades out of the pool?

 

I just really don't know due to the lack of game diversity around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well from our experience around here, people don't change their rosters up much even those of us that have all models in the faction and multiple masters.  This is more due to wanting to be familiar with the models rather than constantly trying new things (although Mark is an exception, he seems to be doing different master and different models all the time, but I haven't found him doing so to be game-breaking). 

 

Book keeping wise, it's a lot easier to go with fixed faction (ie I pick ressurectionists).  Opponents and tournament organizers then don't have to check lists to verify if they're legal, just got to make sure they're all from the right faction.

 

I mean yeah most people only have a small subset of models of which to pick from, not all have gone out and bought a whack of stuff, but in my experience (about 15 games or so all recently) the ability to swap masters game to game would require lots of games experience to make sure you're using each master efficiently.  And I'd argue anyone that has that many games under their belt will likely do very well even with a fixed master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to stay single master. Mostly due to the familiarity issues (you may not know master 2 as well, and a 3rd master might be even less well known). This could cause much slower games as players experiment and learn with stuff. Also, in my opinion single master fits the story line idea a bit better. Assuming that Walpurgis 4 continues with the story focus, it just makes more sense that a players story focus's on a main character.

 

Pool-wise, I would like to keep the pool just a model or two higher than the biggest game. If you can have too many optional models it detracts from planning a good crew in my opinion.

 

For upgrades, I'd kinda like some form of restriction (like a limited number in certain games). I think it could really add to diversity of play by not flat out allowing each build every time. Not sure if they should be in or out of the pool though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer that Single Faction (or basically Malifaux as written) is the most balanced approach to the game.  Having all the masters and models within a faction does not in any way make you more likely to win all your games. 

 

From a balance perspective, I'd like to add the option for a second master (within the same faction of course). 

 

As for the hiring pool, I don't think its necessary or all that beneficial to have one; selecting one (or two) masters will already dictate many of the crew hiring choices one would likely make anyway.  One less thing for the admins to worry about if we get rid of it.

 

That said, I know lots of people like the story aspect of Walpurgis and feel like limits of one-master and a set hiring pool add to the flavour of the event, I just hope everyone realizes the more restrictions you put on the farther you will get from the method the game was designed, tested, and balanced under.

 

If we keep the hiring pool, I'd agree that upgrades should not be counted against the pool.  That or inflate the size of the pool to allow for a selection of upgrades, which will basically amount to the same thing.  Less bookkeeping is better IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always used single master mainly because 1) that's how everyone I know plays, and 2) multiple masters doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective, and Walpurgis is a narrative-first event. As a competitive game, the multiple master might be the way it was designed, but Walpurgis isn't a competitive event.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating a balanced play environment doesn't have to ruin the narrative.  Two masters could embark on an adventure together could they not?  Throughout the fluff of Malifaux the masters are often working together on one task or another.  Would you be opposed to single master but no pool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that the two master setup within the same faction would be fun. As far as the soul stone pool size I think it should stay in place to help those that have a limited number of models as well as hopefully making the setup times between games abit quicker with a limited number of models. The upgrades should either have their own soul stone pool or none at all, and I would lean towards not having a limit on upgrades.

 

I realize that I have answered the asked questions but I would like to interject one other thing. I played in last years walpurgis and had a blast but the only frustrating thing was the time limit. I had about half of my games end on turn 3 and that is right when the game begins to get good and the decisions become big. I would like to see a little more time figured in for each game if possible, but otherwise it's a great event and I am looking forward to it again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do allow two masters then I feel that the SS limit will be rough do to synergies with certain masters. If you have two masters with a limited SS pool then I feel as though it would more tough to make essentially two seperate crews, one for each master. I know within a faction the models have synergies with multiple masters, but i feel with a limited SS pool it would be hard to bring enough models for both masters.

 

In regards to having one master and a limited SS pool, I felt that it was fun to try and bring a list that would help you with all types of scenarios. I dont think that upgrades should go to the SS pool because upgrades vary greatly from master and faction (jack daw having 0ss upgrades for instance).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Obscure Reference

I'm a firm believer that Single Faction (or basically Malifaux as written) is the most balanced approach to the game.  Having all the masters and models within a faction does not in any way make you more likely to win all your games. 

 

From a balance perspective, I'd like to add the option for a second master (within the same faction of course). 

 

As for the hiring pool, I don't think its necessary or all that beneficial to have one; selecting one (or two) masters will already dictate many of the crew hiring choices one would likely make anyway.  One less thing for the admins to worry about if we get rid of it.

 

That said, I know lots of people like the story aspect of Walpurgis and feel like limits of one-master and a set hiring pool add to the flavour of the event, I just hope everyone realizes the more restrictions you put on the farther you will get from the method the game was designed, tested, and balanced under.

 

If we keep the hiring pool, I'd agree that upgrades should not be counted against the pool.  That or inflate the size of the pool to allow for a selection of upgrades, which will basically amount to the same thing.  Less bookkeeping is better IMO.

 

Creating a balanced play environment doesn't have to ruin the narrative.  Two masters could embark on an adventure together could they not?  Throughout the fluff of Malifaux the masters are often working together on one task or another.  Would you be opposed to single master but no pool?

 

+1

 

I have always believed that Single Faction is the way Malifaux Events should be ran.  I also do not believe that more models makes you a better player.  So I understand pool size being in place for time keeping during selection, but I honestly don't think it is needed in a fun event like this.  Let people play with their toys!!!  :-) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rationale behind single master, set pool has always been that it levels the playing field between casual players and hardcore collectors. There are few players for whom Malifaux is their primary game, and Walpurgis draws out a lot of casual players who enjoy the game, but don't play competitively (and as such have only a single crew). Heck, some players only have enough models for a 45 ss crew, with no sideboard. Because a large portion of Walpurgis' player base are not huge collectors, and because the tournament is supposed to be fun for everyone, it makes sense to level the playing field where possible.

 

Rules as written might be fine for one-up play or competitive organized play, but Walpurgis would not be as successful as it has been if it was run as competitive organized play. Walpurgis is different.

 

Honestly, for me multiple masters really would screw with the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the narrative every time, it really drew me in as to why I was palying that certain scenario and strategy. It's the whole reason why walpurgis is walpurigs, it's a great story to envelop yourself in while your playing a game you enjoy.

 

But I acn see where Jim is coming from with the limited SS pool to level the field. Someone who has every model from a faction will have the ability to higher the most ideal crew every time. Whereas someone who has a limited selection to start with will struggle with certain games. So having a limit forces the person who has everything to select there models more carefully and hope that they fit into the majority of strategies and schemes available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone gets something different out of events, and no one is right or wrong.  OFCC began as competitive event, a club challenge to determine which club had the best players, though with a big emphasis on good sportsmanship (none of those WAAC lists/players allowed!).  These days many people will tell you OFCC isn't a competitive event at all and some have gone so far as to suggest removing awards for Best General because "that's not what it's about".  I for one beg to differ.  

 

As for Walpurgis, I absolutely love the narratives you've created thus far and the story encounters make the event truly unique and one of only a few events I always look forward to.  That said, for me my master is not tied to the narrative in any strong way.  When I sit down to play one of the games my opponent could be using any one of almost 40 masters, it doesn't matter to me personally if they happen to have a choice between two or more of them at the start of the game.  From a balance perspective, the player who only has one crew and plays only rarely will likely be at a severe disadvantage against a player who plays a lot even if both are locked into set crews all weekend long; the advantage is mostly in the player's experience and not the fact of them having more models to choose from.

 

I would like to come to a compromise between those that only have or want to use one master and those that have more and want to use them.  I think that compromise would be two masters available with either a larger pool or no pool.  Perhaps if some of those single-master players out there had the opportunity to play in this unique event without being limited by a pool they might be more inclined to pick up another model or two to expand their options, or even to dip into a second master.  Either way, there's nothing stopping them from coming to the event with only one master and just barely enough models to play and still have a great time, because at the end of the day it's the game of Malifaux, the unique encounters, and most importantly the camaraderie of the amazing gamers of the pacific NW that make it the event it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Obscure Reference

Everyone gets something different out of events, and no one is right or wrong.  OFCC began as competitive event, a club challenge to determine which club had the best players, though with a big emphasis on good sportsmanship (none of those WAAC lists/players allowed!).  These days many people will tell you OFCC isn't a competitive event at all and some have gone so far as to suggest removing awards for Best General because "that's not what it's about".  I for one beg to differ.  

 

As for Walpurgis, I absolutely love the narratives you've created thus far and the story encounters make the event truly unique and one of only a few events I always look forward to.  That said, for me my master is not tied to the narrative in any strong way.  When I sit down to play one of the games my opponent could be using any one of almost 40 masters, it doesn't matter to me personally if they happen to have a choice between two or more of them at the start of the game.  From a balance perspective, the player who only has one crew and plays only rarely will likely be at a severe disadvantage against a player who plays a lot even if both are locked into set crews all weekend long; the advantage is mostly in the player's experience and not the fact of them having more models to choose from.

 

I would like to come to a compromise between those that only have or want to use one master and those that have more and want to use them.  I think that compromise would be two masters available with either a larger pool or no pool.  Perhaps if some of those single-master players out there had the opportunity to play in this unique event without being limited by a pool they might be more inclined to pick up another model or two to expand their options, or even to dip into a second master.  Either way, there's nothing stopping them from coming to the event with only one master and just barely enough models to play and still have a great time, because at the end of the day it's the game of Malifaux, the unique encounters, and most importantly the camaraderie of the amazing gamers of the pacific NW that make it the event it is.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark and Josh, you two are not casual Malifaux players. You are all-in players. Not that your opinion doesn't matter, but you represent a different demographic then many Walpurgis attendees. When I talk about things benefiting a folks with large collections, the more serious players, y'all are exactly the kind of folks I'm talking about (myself included).

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps putting things out there like that wouldn't changes folks' impression, and wouldn't change the mindset and demographic of attendees. Perhaps it wouldn't make folks think that "the player with the most toys wins". If I were running this thing (which I'm not this year), I wouldn't want to take that risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. Bigglesworth

I'm going to side with Jim, single master small pool size. Narrative first means a story or your adventure with a master.

 

I would like to see scenario upgrades for minions added each encounter. I know this might be hard to balance, but throw away upgrades might be the way to go. Postive flip throw aways.

 

I sa this with all the desire to go but likely no way, I'm in jays boat last year. Baby due 4/20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see scenario upgrades for minions added each encounter. I know this might be hard to balance, but throw away upgrades might be the way to go.

DAN! THIS! You HAVE to make custom scenario-specific upgrades. That is sheer genius! Let folks find artifacts/equipment/crazy powers during the adventure and carry them to the next game (if they choose to use the points on them).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also of the Single Master, Set (if large) pool, upgrades don't count mindset.

 

I find part of the challenge of these events is to find a general group of models that could conceivably do most if not all things. I enjoy the challenge of trying to make an "all comers" list. In addition, let's use the Guild as an example. They have masters who are specifically keyed to being better at defeating models from one entire other faction. I would suggest that a no-limits event would highly favor a guild player who had all the toys. Not all factions have that degree of specialization.

 

I really think that the M2E system with upgrades goes a long way to offsetting any master-specific weaknesses against strategies: furthermore when you add in the randomly limited schemes. In addition, limiting to a single master means that a given player will be more likely to understand their group well, and give a better game (I know I'm guilty of this myself now and again). Plus, we will probably have better painted crews.

 

I would very much like to see one faction, one master, 70 stones be the order of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. Bigglesworth

DAN! THIS! You HAVE to make custom scenario-specific upgrades. That is sheer genius! Let folks find artifacts/equipment/crazy powers during the adventure and carry them to the next game (if they choose to use the points on them).

Doesn't have to op. Think of beerlifaux favors.

 

I caution to limit this to particular model types. Healing potions can be found, +1 ring, look back to d&d random items tables for inspiration.

 

Mysterious objective rules from 40k. Just keep all the random finds t

 

Thanks jayo end game maintence so games aren't slowed. You can also make scenarios so winners flip on one chart and losers flip on another. Or give + to winner on charts. They can flip at beginning of each following scenario.

 

Thanks Jay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't have to op. Think of beerlifaux favors.

 

I caution to limit this to particular model types. Healing potions can be found, +1 ring, look back to d&d random items tables for inspiration.

 

Mysterious objective rules from 40k. Just keep all the random finds to end game maintence so games aren't slowed. You can also make scenarios so winners flip on one chart and losers flip on another. Or give + to winner on charts. They can flip at beginning of each following scenario.

I have been working up a mini campaign to try to get Malifaux moving around here again... I was considering using a Free "Stone" Upgrade as a item to be found in game. By "Stone" I mean the existing upgrade for each faction that is kinda worthless as an upgrade, but would be a cool Freebie.

 

Having some other things that were one use, or otherwise disposable would be pretty cool too. We could even make upgrade cards for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...