Jump to content

Grrn

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maryland
  • Interests
    Long term health of Malifaux

Recent Profile Visitors

631 profile views

Grrn's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

58

Reputation

  1. I’m in agreement at this point with this explanation if one assumption is made: the unbury is non conditional. I was reading it as if the unbury required a corpse marker to come into base contact with. The arguments presented here assume that this doesn’t matter. Are there any examples of situations where the unbury is conditional that you guys can think of off the top of your head?
  2. Yea, this is where we ended the discussion. This feels like the right answer, but it also seems wrong somehow. Like an unforeseen situation.
  3. If you can’t unbury in base contact then can you even unbury? I would think you don’t meet the conditions to unbury.
  4. So this question came up in a game last night. If a bone pile uses its 2 action to bury and I put 40 mm or 50 mm models over all corpse markers on the table, what happens? If I blow up all the corpse markers, then the bone pile dies, but if there are still corpse markers around this effect doesn’t happen. We were thinking it just stays buried forever since it never meets the condition of being able to unbury at the end of turn to unbury. This feels unintended perhaps? I attached the relevant rule as an image.
  5. There are a good number of us who care about the quality of the game as a whole, not as partisan representatives of our own factions. 2ss activations that can be used to fill out a list where there is already a dearth of mid range to cheap options put a lot of lists over the top as far as activation control goes. Those who play with and against these models a lot should be speaking up about things like this. A change to stuffed piglets was absolutely justified. Suggesting that the change was out of laziness is not something you can really speak to if you were not a part of the discussion. I think every single one of these changes was good for the health of the game and that comes as an arcanist player who consistently uses mech rider, wind gamin, and practiced production. I play against good gremlin players a decent amount and it is my honest opinion that the pressure towards the gremlin faction is completely justified. It has and will continue to be discussed in other places. I would be glad to run you through a list of the reasons in PM if you'd like.
  6. Since this topic has already been posted here in some form, I'm going to repost a bit of what I had on a Wyrd Place. Italics for my initial post. Rules question time: If Hoffman uses On Site Assimilation's "Tap Power" ability on a model that already has slow, does he gain fast? I would argue yes, so here is my justification. Tap Power says that: In order to gain fast the pre-requisite is that the construct "gains slow". So what does gains slow mean? There are two relevant passages that seem like they contradict each other initially, but I don't think they do. (I'll note here, that I now think that there is contradiction here) First, under the Conditions heading of the basic rulebook, second paragraph, last sentence: With this passage it is clearly stated you don't apply the second instance of slow. Second, under the Activations section subheading Generate AP, second paragraph: This is an example of the word gain being used in a circumstance that would imply that you can gain a condition more than once even if it doesn't stack. This implies that there is a difference between "gaining" a condition and "applying" a condition (which to be fair I assumed were the same thing before this second passage was pointed out to me). Conclusion: Gaining a condition is different from applying a condition. You can gain a condition multiple times, therefore a construct already slowed can gain slow, but slow is never applied, therefore Hoffman can be granted fast from a construct gains slow even if it already has the slow condition. So this was my initial post, which points out most of the relevant passages (which I believe the OP missed the passage about multiple instances of fast, which is important). During this discussion there was also a post that pointed out the following: On pg. 39 of the big rule book under the Immunity subheading I cannot speak to intent, as I was not involved in the creation or testing of this, but it seems that the words gain and apply are used interchangeably in some places, but perhaps not in others. If they are used interchangeable, then the example under generating AP I believe contradicts the later passages such as the one just above. Since there is contradiction here, I believe that this is FAQ worthy. Its not a major issue as this has come up exactly once in several hundred games, but an issue nonetheless.
  7. RT @NateSilver538: Gonna be fun to see this next year: https://t.co/IumGQfxpN2

  8. @jakediba @playmoregames @TravisWeyforth @GoldenCCG that is shameful considering the terrain you have available....

  9. RT @BraggingRightsW: BraggingRights 2016 Malifaux - Hello! Now it’s time to finalize some details.  You all have until this... http://t.co/…

  10. @grimgor_Ihide Kings to you, Hengl. Well played.

  11. RT @Guy_In_Suit: Ack! Early Bird tickets are SOLD OUT! Only six spots left! #Malifaux tickets are selling crazy fast! https://t.co/6fzlo4Z0…

  12. @TheLarro @GoldenCCG you can trash two cards with 2 imps

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information