Jump to content

We're currently updating the site and a few things may run slow or not as expected at the moment. Give us a day or two to get everything sorted out and changed up if you would.

One of the new things you'll see about are the 'sticky notes' which you will occasionally see from the site Admins if something important shows up or is newsworthy, or if you happen to be in one of our many beta testing groups giving you an additional heads up when something new needs to be looked at or sorted.

You can send these amongst yourselves as well if you wish, just don't abuse it. 

Thanks for your patience!

Nathan Caroland Nathan Caroland

Kadeton

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

About Kadeton

  • Rank
    Angst Bunny
  • Birthday 12/29/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Well, that's what I've been saying - in my opinion, only one of your interpretations actually matches the text of the rule. Yes, there are two ways that you could in theory resolve abilities, but I don't see how the "check and resolve them all individually" method is something you can arrive at from that wording without a lot of mental gymnastics. That's why I was asking for a run-down on your second interpretation, as it didn't (and still doesn't) make any sense to me. If all you're doing is agitating for an FAQ, that's really not necessary. Aaron reads everything on this board, just like Justin used to, and the questions that are chosen to go in the FAQ aren't the ones with the most responses. I know that timing in the game is something that Aaron feels could be made much clearer. However, it's a big and very complex problem, and I don't expect that he'll want to jump in and deal with individual parts of it before nailing down a more coherent structure across all the timing issues in the game. So if you don't see it in the FAQ, it's not because you didn't jump up and down about it enough - it's because the answers aren't ready yet.
  2. Future of Malifaux (Game)

    I'd quite like to see something along the lines of "synergy" upgrades, which could only be attached to a model if another model was in the same crew. How restrictive and keyword-themed those would be might be a strong point of contention, but it's a huge potential design space with a lot of interesting possibilities. One of the hardest things in the game is accounting for synergy between models, and unlocking specific upgrades based on crew composition might be an easier way to balance that.
  3. I suggest you don't reference programming if you're not prepared to follow through with that paradigm. As you say, "Malifaux isn't a computer program," but my use of programming to explain the situation was merely following on from yours - if you'd prefer a different frame of reference, name it. I've also approached the problem from a semantic perspective in what I've said above, if you prefer. Perhaps I lack imagination. I don't think the sentence is particularly ambiguous, and I think the explanation in FAQ #88 makes it as clear as it needs to be. You've asserted the opposite, but you haven't actually put forward any evidence to support that. Would you care to? I've explained my reasoning in detail. If you need clarification on any part of it, I'm happy to answer questions. If you've got counter-arguments, I'm happy to hear them and discuss them. But if all you've got is "Nuh uh!" then I'm not really interested in engaging further, and to be honest I'm not sure why you are either.
  4. To continue your programming analogy, "If two Abilities happen at the same time, resolve them in the following order" is a compare function. The only way to use such a thing in this context is to run it over a set of data, producing an ordered list. Looking at it another way, the only way you can possibly tell "if two Abilities happen at the same time" is if you know which abilities are happening at that time. You need to know if before you determine the order, according to the way the rule is written. I would like to see your argument that the order given is applied to all models, rather than to the abilities that are happening at the same time, based on the structure of that sentence.
  5. I'll check it out. One thing to be clear about is what the event is in this case. The death of the Gupp is the event that causes both Mud Calling and Juvenile's Wail to be resolved. If the Gupp was the Defender in the Action that killed it, Juvenile's Wail would have to be resolved before Mud Calling. If it wasn't (if it was killed by blast damage, for example) then the Neverborn player could choose to resolve Mud Calling first, then Juvenile's Wail - note that the pulse is part of the resolution of Juvenile's Wail, not part of its timing.
  6. I'm not familiar with this question or that version of the answer - it's not how I'd expect those abilities to resolve. Was this from the official FAQ? I disagree. The General Timing rules provide a way to order a list of simultaneous abilities - "If two Abilities happen at the same time, resolve them in the following order". Note that it does not say, "When an event occurs, check each model in play in the following order, and resolve any relevant Abilities," which would produce your second "loop". You are expected to have already formed a list of relevant abilities based on the event that occurred; you then resolve them in the order provided. How do you form that list, if not to check the criteria of abilities at the time of the event?
  7. Yep, if the Young Nephilim wasn't within 3" of the Terror Tot when it died, it can't benefit from Thirst For Blood, even if Brood allows it to then move to within 3". Basically, for Abilities that have the same timing (in this case, the death of a model) they have to happen simultaneously or not at all.
  8. There's (deliberately, from what I could gather from the previous lead designer) nothing so formal as Magic's "stack" in Malifaux. However, the General Timing rules inherently produce something quite similar to a stack, though Abilities generally do not "interrupt" or get added to the "top" of the stack. One of the things that makes this quite difficult to talk about is the lack of terms available, because they're already taken as Game Terms with specific meaning. You can't really talk about an Ability being "triggered" or "activated", because Triggers and Activations are already defined. That can really add to the confusion, and make it tricky to communicate.
  9. @WWHSD: To be clear, there are two aspects to a "triggered" Ability - the game state that causes it to be triggered, and the resolution of its effect. If the triggering cause of the Ability would also cause other Abilities to trigger at the exact same time, then you resolve them all in the order determined by General Timing. However, each is resolved according to the current game state at the time of resolution - the order is important! The thing that you don't do is re-check the requirements that caused the Ability to trigger - that's already been determined. So, to answer your questions: You don't. You determine all the Abilities that are going to trigger as a result of a game event before resolving any of them, making any measurements necessary to check. You shouldn't be moving any models until after that point. For all the effects of the Ability as it's resolved, you measure from the model's current position at the time of resolution. This sort of depends. Many Abilities of that type have wording to the effect of "When this model is killed or sacrificed, but before it is removed from play..." in which case you'll resolve all those Abilities before removing the model. There are very few effects that would be relevant to resolve on a model after it has been removed from play. "Resolving effects based on the game state that exists while you are resolving the effect" is exactly what you should be doing, as is "determine all possible effects that could trigger... at the time that the effect was triggered." The bit that you don't need is "gather all of the information needed to resolve all of the triggered effects". Hope that helps!
  10. You might be overthinking this. The death is the causal event for resolution of both abilities, but it's instantaneous. Each ability will resolve if, and only if, its requirements were met at the instant of death. In the initial question, when the Tot dies, both abilities go off. The Young Nephilim would have to resolve Brood's effect before resolving Thirst For Blood (due to General Timing, since the Tot is the Defender and the Young Nephilim can't be the Acting Model) but it makes no difference if the Young Nephilim moves further than 3" from the Tot - the conditions for both abilities were met, so both will resolve. In your follow-up quoted above, if the Nephilim wasn't within 3" of the Tot at the instant of its death, then Thirst For Blood would not meet the conditions necessary for it to happen. It doesn't matter whether the Nephilim moves within 3" as a result of Brood, as the instant of death has already passed. I'm not sure what I could cite that would help further - all the necessary rules are right there in the Abilities, perhaps with reference to General Timing (p. 46 BRB).
  11. LGBT characters?

    @Broken Clock, @Math Mathonwy: This back-and-forth about who said what and what they might have meant by it isn't adding anything to the conversation, and is heading towards personal attacks and derailment of the thread. I think it's probably best if you both drop it and move on.
  12. LGBT characters?

    This was very much a feature of my aunts' relationship, sadly. They lived together in an era with a heavy social stigma for female homosexuality (when male homosexuality was outright illegal), so they naturally learned to conceal their relationship in public and pass as "good friends". Even though society gradually became more accepting, they were never comfortable with being open about it, as you might expect from decades of habit. Given the fact that people are still having to fight for gay rights and equality, it's hard to blame them. For Tara and Karina, I thought that ambiguity would work well - partly because while Malifaux is anachronistically progressive compared to the early 20th century, I feel like there's enough Victorian ideology still floating about for openly gay relationships to be a bit scandalous (and Tara and Karina seem like no-nonsense people who would try to avoid that kind of drama where possible), and partly because I agree with the general sentiment that character sexuality doesn't need to be the focus of a story. I usually try to leave things subtle and open-ended - as long as there's enough freedom for people who are looking for it to identify with the characters and their relationship, then I don't think it matters if others skim over it and think of them as nothing more than good friends.
  13. LGBT characters?

    For what it's worth, the representations of Tara and Karina in The Dead Man's Ball (from Shifting Loyalties) were based on my aunt and her partner who had been a couple since the 1960s - they were the best example I could think of for two women who had spent (in T & K's case, literally) eternity together.
  14. Haha, you do what you gotta do. Belles have Df and Wp 4, and their Ml and Ca (discounting Lure as their extreme ability) are both 5. That would be a poor to middling spread for a 4ss minion, so for 5ss it's outright weak. 8 (or 7) Wds helps, but in my experience a Belle won't live as long as a Nurse (just for a comparably-priced alternative) against most models. They suffer the same curse as many "durable" Resser models: your opponent knows you'll have loads of Hard to Wound as soon as you declare the Faction, so they bring plenty of high-min-damage attacks which - against Df 4 - almost always connect. I'm not saying Belles are or ever were weak, merely that they coupled unusually high stats to unusually low ones, which I feel doesn't happen as much any more. Justin resisted making those changes for a really long time - there were calls for Belles to be nerfed right from Day One. They were eventually changed because that perception was causing negative play experiences, which is entirely fair, but the errata wasn't prompted by any emergent balance problems such as Resser dominance in the tournament scene. Yeah, this prompted me to do a quick review and it's really all about the sixes. Pick a 7ss or greater model in Wave 4 at random, and it will usually be quicker - often much quicker - to list the offensive and defensive stats that aren't a six than the ones that are.
  15. I feel like the first book included some of the most highly-focused models - Belles and Austringers, for example - that were perceived as "broken" due to their extreme stats in one particular strength... a perception that tended to ignore their mediocre to poor stats in other areas. Rather than there being a "power creep" trend per se (in the sense of model stats expanding through the top end), I'd say the trend has been one toward making all models (and particularly the new Masters) into highly competent generalists. I suspect the average stats for models have crept up a little over time (just compare Reporters or Akaname to the 4ss Minions from Wave 1!), but this is overwhelmed by the tendency toward the upper middle - rather than seeing models with eights and fours on the same card, we're getting more models with sixes and sevens across the board. Wave 3 probably made the smallest splash and had the fewest "must-haves", but it was also a very small wave. It still has its standouts, too - the Carrion, Shadow and Brutal Emissaries are all game-changers for their respective Factions, sleeper hits like Big Jake and Master Queeg are starting to get the attention they deserve, and minions like the Mechanized Porkchop, Wind Gamin and Jorogumo have become staple choices for many crews. I suspect it just felt a lot more scattershot - Wave 1 was all over the place, while Wave 2 was generally very solid, so Wave 3 was a little more of a return to the form of some models being amazing and others being a bit trash. Wave 4 was again very solid... perhaps there's a Star-Trek-esque pattern emerging?
×