Jump to content

HalcyonSeraph

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    2,285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

HalcyonSeraph last won the day on March 29 2014

HalcyonSeraph had the most liked content!

About HalcyonSeraph

  • Birthday 12/17/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

HalcyonSeraph's Achievements

Experienced

Experienced (11/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

123

Reputation

  1. You don't even have to make low walls severe if you don't want. You can just have them be Ht1 Blocking Cover (soft or hard as you see fit). That way they don't affect movement at all, which makes sense to my playgroup because a waist-height wall would barely even slow down someone who can easily vault over it. The fact that you can then push through it is fine, whatever is forcing that movement can easily be imagined as either pulling you straight through it or making you vault over it.
  2. We are going in circles. To be fair though, I only even started this thread in hopes that there would be enough disagreement for it to land in the FAQ, so lets hope it does!
  3. Yeah, that is what I am getting at too. A model has either activated or it hasn't - positing the existence of a weird quasi-state where it both has not activated and also is not unactivated is strange.
  4. Because English is weird? "has been born" would be the way to word it if you insisted on using the same word (has/was) for both.
  5. So to be clear, everyone agreeing with Smurf woudl also say that Manipulative remains active during that models entire own activation, right? That is the same situation from the other side. Same with Oxford Mages pseudo-armor. To extend Kadeton's analogy, some people believe "has activated" to be analagous to "has lived", in other words "is done activating". I and others believe "has activated" is analagous to "was born", ie, has passed a singular point at which they can be said to have been activated, rather than has passed the complete phase in which the are active. This needs a FAQ answer, clearly, as "natural language" could be reasonably interpreted either way in this case.
  6. That is not true. You don't "only know" during the activation step. There's no timing anywhere that says you check then and only then. If, in fact, a model has activated as soon as you activate it, then as soon as that happens Tara gains reactivate. There's no wording or indication that would say you wait until the next time you need to activate a model to check that. We are told over and over again that when there is no game timing given,to use regular English. Regular English would interpret the phrase "once all other models have activated" to trigger as soon as all other models have activated, not at some particular game step later on. If it was meant to only check during the activation step, it would say "During the activation step, if you have no models who may activate, Tara gains reactivate"
  7. Short version: Does a model count as "having activated" at the START of their activation, or not until they END their activation? Two scenarios where this matters: Model A has Manipulative and activates, and tries to walk away from Model B, triggering a disengaging strike. Does model B have to check Manipulative? Tara has a buried Killjoy and a rat. The rat is the last model on the table for Tara's crew that has yet to activate (other than KJ who is buried) and tara has Eternal Journey up. The rat activates, does some stuff, and sacrifices, bringing out KJ. Did Tara gain reactivate at the start of the rat's activation, or does she now have to wait until after KJ goes becuase she suddenly has another model? My own interpretation is that once you choose to activate a model, it has been activated. Others disagree and say you have not activated until you are DONE activating. I asked Justin on twitter and he said to bring it here, so here it is.
  8. I'd just like Wyrd to admit when they have scale screwups, instead of only admitting the ones they can't possibly get away with pretending were on purpose. If it were just Nekima, that would be one thing. But we've had the amazon Viks, the ludicrous Brass Arachnid, the kneeling Death Marshall, the tiny Sorrow, the kneeling Samurai, the female MPP kit, the deformed Watcher, the Young Lacroixs, and on and on. I can't imagine how badly Brewmaster & Co were out of scale if it caused them to actually refuse to sell it and send it back to China. And that's not even mentioning the smaller but still pretty annoying stuff like Howard Langston not fitting on the usable space of a 50mm. If all those mistakes they didn't own up to were not actual mistakes, then they have a serious problem with the design to production pipeline and have had that problem for what, two years? If they seriously intended to make their 50mm Ht 3 model smaller than an existing 40mm Ht 2 model is that really better than it being a mistake? Same for being apparently unable or unwilling to make a kneeling model that doesn't tower over his standing buddies, or having multiple models apparently scaled to the perspective of the box art. Wyrd, seriously. You have maybe the best ruleset in the business, and I love your game, but you just can't get out of your own way when it comes to making models that people will actually build with their hands and play with and get excited about.
  9. I don't have any problem with metals, personally - some of the old Malifaux ones are my favorite sculpts in the game, and I love the newer Infinity models too, which are all metal. Nekima in particular was just a bitch of a model to assemble and featured poorly designed metal wings all balanced on a tiny ankle. It was up there with Coryphee as models everyone was praying for a good plastic version of, and this one is kinda...meh.
  10. Well that is one option: That an action is a unit of time, a window during which you effectively own the model completely and make all decisions for it. The other option is that an action is a specific thing, like an attack or an Obey, and any decisions not directly stemming from that action are made by the original owner. The issue is there is zero evidence for either of those options over the other. There's nothing but "I think" and gut feelings for one way or the other.
  11. I almost dread posting this because it's such a bizarrely complex issue and there's no inkling at all of the answer. I expect it will need to be FAQed but the first step there is discussion here so here goes. The general queston is "how complete is control over a model during an action controlled by the opposing player"? I'll give a few of the most impactful examples: Example 1: Player A's Madame Sybelle uses her Comply trigger to force Player B's Hamelin to take an action. The action she chooses is to have Hamelin use Obey himself, commanding a nearby Flesh Construct to attack Hamelin. This attack would inflict Poison, and Hamelin's Nihilism is optional, meaning his controller can choose to take the Poison. Given the timing of the Obeys and attacks, who gets to decide whether or not to allow the Poison? Player A or Player B? Example 2: Same thing, except instead of a Flesh Construct, Sybelle orders any model with Obey (lets say Zoraida) to Obey Sybelle herself, to then attack Zoraida again. She gets the instant-kill trigger. Who decides whether or not to discard two cards to cancel the instant-kill? I read it as Obeylikes giving you control of an action, which would obviously give you control of the nested actions if you Obey and Obey. However, I'm not of the opinion that that gives you control of defensive abilities that happen to be triggered during those actions. I have no citation for this in the rules, its just a gut feeling, mainly because allowing it would allow Sybelle to pull off two-card unstoppable instant-kills on any model with an Obey-like. Plenty of people I have talked to see it the other way, though that you are controlling the model during this time window and get to make any decisions that model would get to make.
  12. It is important to take cues from the person you are teaching and adjust. A lot of new players, particularly ones for whom Malifaux is their first skirmish game or even first minis game, would be completely blank-stare lost if you just started right out with deployment and scheme pool flips and initiative and activations before they even know what the cards do or what any of these numbers mean.
  13. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that they plan to have Brewie there, but there's still some question about shipping or product or something, the same stuff that has been plaguing his release for months. So they don't want to promise him and fail, they'd rather not promise him and have him be a nice surprise.
  14. My only regret from the Wave 1 beta is that we didn't succeed in convincing the devs to add a trigger called More, More, More to Rebel Yell that lets you repeat the spell.
  15. Yeah, usually you can easily tell how many VPs the solo player will be able to get given the remaining time, and you don't literally have to play out the turns. But technically he does get the rest of the game to himself to gather those VPs.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information