Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Angelshard

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

234 profile views
  1. Hold Up Their Forces

    Oh now I see what you mean. Yeah that does seem unintended, I haven't even read it that way until now.
  2. Hold Up Their Forces

    You only need to be engaged with two other models not three. But if one of those two is engaged with another of yours then you get no vp
  3. A Final Plea for GG2018

    @Slobber there's quite a distance from warmachines caster kill win condition to malifauxs strats and schemes. Honestly, when you say that the game might not be for players who find the complexity of the game daunting, it comes off as a bit elitist. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but saying the game isn't for them because the complexity of win conditions is way higher really isn't fair. This version of gaining grounds is better for every one who knows the game (at least that is my opinion). But you also have to acknowledge that it is harder to get in to. gg17 had the saving grace of letting you create a standard crew that could do okay in every pool, thus being easier to get in to for new players. @edopersichetti I think it's so that they don't seem obligatory, but rather an additional option. A lot of people see gaining grounds as the "correct" way to play and so would include other strategies, even though they might not like them.
  4. A Final Plea for GG2018

    I don't think anyone finds it super complicated. What people are saying, as I see it, is that there's already a lot to do before the game starts and anything that makes it less fiddly is better. On top of that malifaux is already in the steeper end of the learning curve for table top games, so adding to the complexity makes it harder to introduce new players, even if the added complexity is miniscule. In the end you have to weigh the benefits of a more varied system against the difficulty of learning it. Personally I'm all for it, but I also know several people who haven't started on malifaux because they found the concept of varied schemes and strats daunting.
  5. Death Contract and Eternal Darkness

    There is a debate about it in the TT forum from a schemes and stones podcast where they talked about this trick. My impression was that it's legal, but highly fishy. Its obviously unintended, so I personally wouldn't do it and count it as an abuse, but raw it's legal.
  6. A Final Plea for GG2018

    On that we agree, this is leaps and bounds better. I just want every master to be viable in every strat, but I guess you can't have everything.
  7. A Final Plea for GG2018

    I really like this version a lot better. My major gripe was the obligatory even/Odd th at, I found, made it more complicated for little gain. I can easily see the argument that locked schemes are more complicated than a single always scheme. But I don't think the difference is that much when compared to the payoff, namely a less stale meta, where I have to bring a model that can solo the always in every crew, and to more varied master tiers. I can see how this could be an issue for new players. This system means you have to invest in more models in order to have a viable crew for every strategy and that the games learning curve grows steeper. I'm not sure how big an issue this is, in my experience, most of those who start using gaining grounds have also decided to go all in, whereas the more casual usually keep to henchman hardcore as the only variation from the rule book. @Travis Considering that the kill scheme for symbols is eliminate the leadership, I don't think it's an issue at all. At least as far as I know it isn't a scheme that us taken often, and it's usually quite ap demanding, especially if you need to spread out at the same time at you want to focus down a master. And for ours it's another way to hurt Summoners and activation control. Actually I'm a bit afraid it might be too much, making summoners unviable for this strat, as a summoned minion can't score, but still counts for the locked scheme.
  8. A Final Plea for GG2018

    But as far as I know the tournament rotation have never been random before. You usually have a locked rotation. I can see the attraction, I just think that if we do include four more, let's not include those that we have just finished playing for the past year.
  9. A Final Plea for GG2018

    I completely agree that the always should be individual to the strategy. I'm just really curious why the five extra strategies? It's not for rotation as far as I can see, so why add them? @Tris I just don't see the reason to have four of the exact same strategies that I've played all through 2017 be the next year too. One of the things I really love about this game is the change revert year to new strategies and schemes. And I know this is just a rough draft so the strategies could be changed, but I'm not sure I really want five pairs of strategies. I think making two strategies that are based on the same but slightly different means that one of them will almost always be plain better than the other.
  10. A Final Plea for GG2018

    I really like the idea of separate always schemes, but I don't like the even/odd strategies. Not so much because of the concept, but because I think the strategies for gg18 are just plain better. Yes I know, you can always just play the new ones. But if I play with someone who insists on playing gg18 as written, not an uncommon occurrence, I have to chose between not playing or risk playing a boring strategy. I honestly can't see the benefit of adding the odd strategies. I would love for someone to explain why it's good. Also, while I agree that might be a little too killy, I really disagree with the whole "you shouldn't be rewarded for killing" argument. Its still a major aspect of the game and something that should be rewarded. One of my (and I think most people" biggest issues with gg17 was that an elite kill crew of 5-6 big baddies was pretty much unplayable, it's not something that should be viable every game, but once in a while would be nice.
  11. 10.10 Guarded Treasure

    I am☺

    I liked my memory better, but you're right. Oh well guess I'll just have to see if torso and pelvis can't be 33% oh and the gun and head... an the rest of the model
  13. Shadow Lair

    Think of the upgrade like a summon, when you discard it it's gone, if you attach it again it's a new upgrade with the same name, so the damage won't carry over. Also, imagine the horrible book keeping cumulative damage from different shadow lairs would cause.

    Hmm if I recall correctly only 30% of the model has to be from the original (my woods follow the gg rules). I don't see an issue in putting some Lazarus parts on that model, it's really cool for collodi.

    @MrBrasidas045 that is very much a question of preference. I don't own Lazarus as I refuse to play with an ugly model, but generally people tend to favour one or the other based on what they need them to do, rather than one being better than the other. @Azkral I use it quite often, it can be devastating with collodi attacking 4 times at plus 2 on attack and plus 3 on damage. Also he only needs a few effigys and/or marionettes to work, so you can spend the rest on big beaters. Generally I still find fated is better (at least for my play style) but props is very much viable. Especially if you have a hungry land marker down or a couple of sorrows (not optimal, but quite fun), then his damage goes through the roof.