Jump to content

LeperColony

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    925
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by LeperColony

  1. The topic of opposed flips crops up from time to time. I am a major supporter of the idea, which in fact was an optional rule in the 1st edition Fatemaster's Almanac. Opposed flips fix a lot of what's wrong with TtB mechanically, at virtually no cost (it's marginally slower). I run TtB with opposed flips, but I use just two decks. One of the fated, and one for Fatemaster characters. In regards to your system: 1. Each player having their own fate deck is fine, but it greatly changes the math of the game. 2. I'm not sure what you're gaining by changing the way cheating works. It feels more restrictive to limit cheating to just suit exchanges. 3. Fatemaster characters shouldn't need any bonus, because they already have printed AVs. All you need to do is add the flipped card's value to their AV.
  2. Also if need be, the Lotus Eaters can remove one (each) for free at the end of their activation, and heal too. Which means you have healing kits just sort of lying around. Koji can also turn them friendly, if need be. A couple of pre-existing elements of Shen's crew synergize to make this new engine particularly egregious. 1) He has multiple totems. Since they can take the 4WP as a bonus, you're able to use your totems to draw cards, which is a significantly outsized effect for 2 stone models you get for free. 2) Chi means his crew is almost always capable of getting a higher stat in the flip. The order chi is added puts additional hand pressure on your opponent since some times it can change the Monk from losing to winning the initial flip, putting cheating first pressure on your opponent. It also means that the monk model can usually be sure they can win the duel if they have a sufficient card in hand. A prospect much more likely if you're drawing a ton of cards. 3) Lotus Eaters are only six stones, so the engine tax is lower than it would be in Misaki (and much more efficient thanks to 4WP). Also, as mentioned above, they have the potential to remove the markers for free and heal, reducing the risk of keeping them around (when that exist even exists). 4) 4WP is itself an incredibly efficient action with no TN (though not without some complexity since its push is flat 6 instead of up to). It is also not limited in any way except for chi use, so if you want to spend master AP to take the action in addition to totems, you can. 5) The Monk keyword has access to cheap and effective healing, thereby reducing the cost of shooting your own people. The Low River Monk is very affordable, and Shen has access to healing through Low River Style. Maybe you don't want to swap styles and lose 4WP, but if you're running Shen2, you can turn one of the Lotus Eaters into a healer by giving it Low River Style.
  3. It would be nice if we could secretly select the models eligible to score for the turn in Covert Operations. Any chance it could work similarly to how models are selected for schemes, except that we'd have the ability to change it each turn?
  4. If Doc Mitchell fails the duel to his Hidden Flintlock, does he have to resolve the After Resolving portion of his action? After resolving effects occur on success or failure. if this were a trigger, it would generate in step 4 (perform the duel) and then resolve in step 6 (after resolving). But this isn't a trigger, it's part of the action's effects. Since the duel is failed in step 4, the Apply Results step (step 5) is "not performed." So no effect from the action is generated, and therefore no pending effect to resolve when you get to step 6. RAW it seems like he shouldn't have to discard, but I'm wondering how Parker players have been handling it.
  5. Is there any chance the hiring pool can be optimized such that models that dual faction models don't show twice? For instance, whenever you make a crew, you're able to see options from other factions because of dual faction masters that are located in your own faction. Is there any way to make it so that each model can only appear once, and if a model shares a faction with your declared faction, it won't display under other factions?
  6. Is a blank trigger still declarable just without effect, or does the trigger no longer exist? Could matter since there's a defensive trigger that reduces damage if no attacking trigger was declared.
  7. LeperColony

    Faq tab

    This would be fantastic. Even if it can't be tied to individual models, having an area where you can access the FAQ and errata on the app without additional download would be great.
  8. I just came in to spitball mechanics. I'm not sure it needs a change either, except for the fact that like many mechanics in Malifaux I find it would benefit from more counter play.
  9. Honestly it still works even if cards aren't removed at the start, but then it's more of a nerf I think, to tie the maximum number of removed cards to the number of Nightmare models.
  10. I'm not in any way saying my idea is THE idea, but while Dreamer2's first turn would be quite different, Lucid Dreams still works with him because under my suggestion it still sends cards out of game, it just doesn't increase the maximum number of cards you can have out of game. To break it down: Each Nightmare model has an ability that removes one card from the game at the start of the game. Dreamer has an ability that caps the number of cards that can be removed from the game at the number of Nightmare models in his crew. So losing models reduces the number you can have removed, summoning more increases the number. Lucid Dreams still removes cards from the game, but if you are already at the cap permitted by Dreamer, then you have to return a removed card to the discard pile. Since after a Dreamer2 swap the removed from game cache is potentially empty (depending on the number of cards in the hand), Lucid Dreams could fill it again. So for example, if you have five Nightmare models, then you remove five cards at the start of the game, and you can only have a maximum of five out of the game at any time. Lucid Dreams would allow you to cycle what's out, but not increase past five. However, once you've swapped your control hand once, if that number were less than five, you could keep adding to it with Lucid Dreams. For instance, if you have a control hand of 0 and five out of play, you swap and now have 0 out of play. So when Lucid Dreams adds cards to the out of game area, the cards do not exceed the number of Nightmare models, and so remain out of play. So two issues with Dreamer2 under such a system is yes, the first swap would be really odd. And second, if your opponent killed Nightmare models such that it was no longer possible to have five out of game, then Dreamer2 couldn't ever swap. Of course, Dreamer2's swap mechanic could be changed in response. The benefits of such a mechanic include: There is a cap on the number of cards that can be removed, so Dreamer can't sculpt down to all severes Lucid Dreaming retains value because it allows the removed from game cache to be sculpted, and it also provides a mechanic to add to/replenish the removed from play cache if it is ever below the maximum permitted Opponents have counter play with the removed from game effect by killing Nightmare models (and reducing the number of permitted removed cards), whereas currently there isn't really any. It is possibly faster than figuring out which half to keep every turn for Dreamer1 (seems so to me, but if not many cards are out or if the player is quick in deciding, maybe not).
  11. Personally, I would change the mechanic to be something like the following: Each keyword model would have a +1 ability that said something like "after deployment, remove the top card of your fate deck from the game." And Dreamer would have an ability like "Whenever the number of cards removed from the game exceeds the number of friendly Nightmare models in the game, select a removed card and place it in your discard pile" or some such (written on the fly, obviously language could be better). So the number of cards that are removed from the game is fixed and tied to your keyword hires. But since the removed cards are random, Lucid dreaming would allow you to swap them, and summoning would increase the number of cards you can have out of the game. However, there's also counter play, as killing Nightmare models would allow you to force cards back in if there were already a max removed.
  12. What was the strat/scheme pool and the crew hires?
  13. I'm looking at the concept assuming it were employed in a statistical meaningful environment, like say the Vassal World Series. But really no matter how wide spread the meta(s) it is used in, every time it is used, it means (by definition) fewer games with those models during the very errata cycle that would be used to evaluate them. Would the difference in games be significant in terms of evaluating the models? Hard to say but if I had to guess, probably not, unless it became the default for the widest participation online events. But it is a difficult effect to evaluate since I have little insight on how Wyrd decides what to review in its yearly errata, the information they use to make their assessments, and what, if any, testing the changes go through.
  14. Power creep is a serious issue, and part of that is due to the somewhat limited playtest pool, and part of it is due to design philosophy. But a more aggressive errata/faq schedule means that individual changes can be smaller and encompass fewer models (even single keywords) because you're not trying to do everything you feel is important for the entire year. Players playing less than 10 games between each update is not a problem if those games are better, and if errata are more targeted and limited because there's more of them, most players will see no change for those 10 games anyway. What Wyrd should do is create a tier of "Provisional" cards (or some such) that is similar to DMH in that they are clearly identifiable and by default not-tourney legal, though individual TOs could let them in, that represent potential changes. This would allow Wyrd to look at entire keywords and redesign them from the ground up, outside of the private playtest environment (which would still exist and serve as the "first pass" process) to where there could be sufficient games to get an actual sense of how well the changes are working. Changes should then follow a "row, row, row your boat" sequence where various modifications are in progressive states, so that you have the devs working on ideas furthest from release, closed playtesters on "first pass," and then provisional cards being an open beta, with the goal of perhaps an official release single keyword revision once a quarter with two more in known development, subject to design resources, FAQs at a similar rate, and large rules errata yearly as we currently have. At the end of this current release, we'll be looking at maybe ~750 models in Malifaux. Wyrd's current errata philosophy of maybe changing 10 models per year is simply insufficient, unless you want to be playing a balanced game in 2097. One of the issues I see with Balancefaux is it is going to be a negative incentive for the strongest players to play the newly released material if they can't be used in tournaments. We can already see with DMH that models which technically exist, but aren't generally tournament legal, see much less play from the top players, even in their casual games. And it shouldn't be too hard to understand why, and I expect as a result of making new releases illegal for events, we'll see a significant drop in the number of people playing them. That means even if an errata cycle comes by, we're going to have learned a lot less about them and they're less likely to receive changes. Balancefaux isn't inherently a bad idea, but it's not really solving the problem of imbalance, just delaying it.
  15. While obviously you were being facetious here, I do think that Wyrd would be much, much better off with a more aggressive errata/faq release schedule closer to patch notes in video games. And that they also would be better off with a "public test server" section of the app with proposed changed cards.
  16. Today at the game store myself and another player encountered identical issues. We both uses Samsung Galaxy phones (mine is an S20, his an S22 I think). We both have version 1.6.15 and we both attempted to clear cache first, then clear all data. Neither solved the issue. Searching If we searched for an individual model such that we only got a single result (for instance, Chiaki), the search would populate but clicking on the card would cause the screen to momentarily "shudder" and the card wouldn't be displayed, we'd remain at the search results screen. Partial searching (for "Chi" for instance) that brings up a range of results did not experience this issue. This is not limited to just Chiaki for us, using her as an example. EDIT: I also noticed that this issue does not impact the "Upgrade" tab. Even when I search only for a single result and can't bring up the model's card, I can go to the Upgrade tab and see Chiaki's reliquary. EDIT 2: Although by no means exhaustive, I fiddled around a little and managed to reproduce the same error searching for Toshiro and Manos, but not Death Marshal Recruiter. So I thought it might be tied to upgrades, but a search for Myranda worked fine. However, it isn't all of Yan Lo's keyword that's broken, becuase Gokudo for instance worked fine. The search issue may have been discovered by sheer coincidence as we were going to play a YL game. Crew Building While we were able to select a faction and a master, and advance to the hiring screen, no models could actually be added to the crew and the remaining Soulstone balance did not change. This occurred both in the Crews section and if you try to make a crew during the game creations sequence. EDIT 3: As a test, I tried creating a non-Yan Lo crew (Titania 1) and was able to add models to it. It appears the issue may be specific to Yan Lo. Thanks for the help in advance!
  17. Round timers already guarantee games are only going to go a certain length. The point of clocks is to more fairly distribute a resource that exists within the game. Namely, time. But I also feel that clocks should punish slow play, which isn't the same as the slower player. This is why I prefer formats like the increment or delay, or time divisions that provide each player with more than 50% of the time. I also don't understand why people actually like the time out consequence to be "you have to sit there and watch your opponent keep playing." To my mind, that feels like an intensely negative experience. Extra points for the opponent, penalty points for timing out, or death clocks all feel a lot better than sitting there doing nothing for the rest of the game.
  18. Before recent world events, I always recommended terracutter. In my opinion they have the best designs out there. But unfortunately they're located in Russia.
  19. Sadly I work at the con with the RPG staff, so I can't commit to a tournament, but I will be dropping in to see it.
  20. Rocket Party says in relevant part: "After an Objective Marker is moved into base contact with a table edge in a player's Deployment Zone, it is removed, the opposing Company scores 3 VP, and places an Objective Marker anywhere within 3" of the centerline at least 12" away from another Objective Marker." In Sideways, the centerline meets the players' Deployment Zones at the narrow tapered edge. A question came up in a game. If you get the marker into that little corner, in base contact with the table edge, then you remove it and get 3 VP. But then you can just place it in the exact same place, score 3 VP, place it again, score 3 VP... Even if something prevented the endless loop, it appears you can just place the marker straight in the opponent's deployment zone, auto scoring 1 VP at the end. Is this intended, or am I missing something?
  21. That's actually not the only way to read it. You're taking "when the trigger is declared" to be a condition on the action of paying costs. Namely, if you don't pay costs when the trigger is declared, then it doesn't matter whether you pay them or not, the effect still happens. However, there's another coherent way to read it as "if you don't pay costs when the trigger is declared, then you don't get the effect." As there is no declare stage, costs aren't paid. Because costs aren't paid, there's no effect. The "or" in "...when the trigger is declared or [nothing else is resolved]" indicates the consequence of failing to pay the cost when the trigger is declared. There's no need to read it in the manner you described. It may be helpful to construct a sequence flow chart: 1. Declaration Step: Were costs paid in this step? No. 2. Resolution Step: Effects are resolved if costs are paid in the Declaration Step. -Were costs paid in the Declaration Step? No -Therefore, no effects are resolved So in fact, whether or not you want to see this as a matter of being "technical," it's entirely consistent with the language to say the consequence of not paying the cost is the nullification of further effects. And in fact, so far as I know, no part of the rules says if you can skip a cost's timing stage, the effect still occurs. However, there is text to indicate what happens if you don't pay a cost. But I don't think it's clear cut either way, and that makes sense, because this isn't a situation the original rules likely intended to cover. Which is why I think RAW resolutions aren't particularly helpful in this case.
  22. Special Restrictions do not have the same text as cost (the text that indicates you can't resolve other portions if you don't resolve cost). Rather, Special Restrictions say you can only declare the trigger if it meets the listed requirement. Since PoP appears to skip the declaration stage, and there doesn't appear to be a listed consequence of not fulfilling the Special Restriction other than forbidding the trigger's declaration, I think it would ignore those restrictions. Personally, I think the cleanest way to resolve it is for Wyrd to say PoP essentially re-starts the trigger declaration sequence (for the trigger PoP is using), so costs must be paid and Special Restrictions adhered to. But RAW, in my opinion, there's textual support that says not paying the cost renders the rest of the trigger null, and that Special Restrictions can be avoided if the trigger somehow completes its entire resolution sequence while skipping declaration. --- Also thinking about it a little more, I'm not so sure it's all that funky. The reading relies on the same timing logic that makes costs skippable. Namely, that you aren't ever declaring the trigger, and costs are paid at declaration. What it does though is assign a different significance to not paying the cost. Your initial interpretation assumed if you can skip the cost paying segment, then you get the trigger for free. There's text in the rules to support the idea that that's not how it works.
  23. PoP does direct you to resolve the trigger, but the rules for cost indicates that if the cost is not paid, "no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." (emphasis mine) While I believe the most natural reading of PoP indicates you can just ignore triggers, the cost section does at least arguably articulate the concept that the cost and the effect of the trigger are separate effects and avoiding the first may render the second inert. In other words, the cost is an integral part of the trigger, so when PoP tells you to resolve the trigger, you do have to resolve the entire trigger. Unfortunately, you're past the declare stage so you can't pay the costs, and that means any other effect can't be resolved. It may also be possible that what Wyrd really intended is for PoP to essentially begin a new trigger sequence including declaring. But as I said, I think the most natural reading (which doesn't mean it's the one Wyrd will ultimately endorse) is that you don't have to pay the trigger's cost.
  24. This is a super tiny thing, but when you search in the M3E app, if you get only a single result, at the bottom it says "1 Results" when it should be "1 Result"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information