Jump to content

Samael Hopkins stupid strong!?!


lame0

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, lame0 said:

Cyborg applies armor well after the initial check so....at that point it already has armor +1 so then the other ability adds a second armor. Like I said nowhere on the upgrade does it say you lose armor if x it just say you gain armor if x. So the recheck isn’t to see if you lose armor because of something but to check if you gain more armor. It’s just asking the same question forever but it doesn’t ask.....do you have armor if so lose armor.

Like other conditionals in the game it asks you did x happen if so y. Not if x happens then y never happened or disappears. It’s like if an attack trigger that grants an extra attack doesn’t happen do you lose the initial attack? The answer is an obvious no.

You check for things that have an effect. for LLC it has an effect anytime the model doesn’t have the armor ability. It’s just like how Nellie and lucious upgrades check if you are winning. Would I tell the nelie player they lose health because the condition to gain health wasn’t met this turn so they lose the benifit they got last turn? No that doesn’t make sense. I’m going off the same reasoning. You don’t retroactively change something because it isn’t happening now instead of when the effect took place unless it is explicitly in the rules of the upgrade or model (like three headed).

Abilities are always active, this ability doesn't check at the beginning of the game to apply something that you then don't recheck. Abilities are always active meaning you always recheck them continuously. If something removes this upgrade you remove armour from the model, it isn't some constant added at the beginning of the game, that's not how abilities and upgrades work.

McCabe's upgrades are a prime example. If your reading of LLC is correct then a model that had the Glowing saber attached at any point of the game has that attack even after McCabe takes it back. The upgrade doesn't tell you to remove the ability you gained if you lose the upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

Abilities are always active, this ability doesn't check at the beginning of the game to apply something that you then don't recheck. Abilities are always active meaning you always recheck them continuously. If something removes this upgrade you remove armour from the model, it isn't some constant added at the beginning of the game, that's not how abilities and upgrades work.

McCabe's upgrades are a prime example. If your reading of LLC is correct then a model that had the Glowing saber attached at any point of the game has that attack even after McCabe takes it back. The upgrade doesn't tell you to remove the ability you gained if you lose the upgrade.

Not really since I’m conceding that when an upgrade that provides an ability or action is discarded or removed all things related to it are removed. Tbh I don’t even see how removing/ discarding upgrades works since I don’t see where it’s described at all (I play it the way I described above because well it’s the only current sensible solution and that’s the way it’s played). I come from an mtg background so to see things so totally vague almost scares me since 99% of interactions are described and explained on their website. I’ve always been a raw kind of guy and if faq or errata point differently that’s fine but tbh I really don’t see how it applies differently.

I mean totally no disrespect but when you guys just say that’s how it works or then how does this other thing work doesn’t help me understand where my logic went wrong especially when your question leads us to a rather “unwritten” part of the rules. 

I’m always intrigued by this stuff but funny enough it really doesn’t even matter for my strategy and has no relevance for any other master. I’d love to keep the discussion going in a different thread but I think arguing about a super rare thing like this is taking away from my excitement about Sam.

Especially since I stated 9/10 times I would want to give Hoffman the +2 armor anyway to keep him and his debuff alive. Giving Hoffman armor +2 and his ability to borrow other models armor just makes him backbreakingly difficult to kill. Sam is quite powerful with one of our masters which is something I could not say ever before.

I think the list has incredible synergy since basically everything can shoot or attack vs df and it makes df duels a total nightmare for the opponent. (Hopefully I get to try it out this week).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lame0 said:

Especially since I stated 9/10 times I would want to give Hoffman the +2 armor anyway to keep him and his debuff alive. Giving Hoffman armor +2 and his ability to borrow other models armor just makes him backbreakingly difficult to kill. Sam is quite powerful with one of our masters which is something I could not say ever before.

I think the list has incredible synergy since basically everything can shoot or attack vs df and it makes df duels a total nightmare for the opponent. (Hopefully I get to try it out this week).

How does Hoffman get Armor +2? You O.S.A Pneumatic upgrades?

 

I was intrigued by Mecha-Samael since Pneumatic Upgrades came out even for his old cost. His biggest issues are still that he has Df5, Wk4 and 1" engagement which means you either need to machine puppet him a lot or be very careful so he doesn`t die because its not that hard to kill him and this list looses a lot of oomph when he`s gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@trikk

it depends he can either get it via osa or by the wastrel passing to him. Both are viable options. It depends the turn you do it and what your trying to accomplish with Hoffman’s activation. Typically osa turn 1 though.

i felt the same way about Sam but just like you said I couldn’t justify him since he was so darn squishy (and expensive). now that armor +1 only cost 1ss he’s not bad. If you compare him to a gremlin taxidermist he’s more resilient with a better stat line and the henchman characteristic to stone for damage reduction. Granted they don’t fill the same exact slot but I say it because I use the taxidermist a ton and he is squishier than Sam with armor. 

Last thing even comparing it with the next best option (Francisco). He is the same defensively unless you take wade in but Sam has the tactical going for him. So the trade off seems pretty even but Sams tactical seems game changing while Francisco is just more consistent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can see where you are coming from lame0, I'd have to agree with the others about the issue.

That said, I love the concept about trying to get the most out of Sam in a viable way. I never actually thought much about that tactical action (never gave him a chance..) but using OSA and getting it with a more mobile, sturdier and a potential ca 8/10 (different list) shines a new light on ol' Sammyboy!

I'm going to try the idea out myself with possibly tweaking the list if I ever find time to get a game in! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoffman's ability to turn any Guild model into Robo-Guild models opens up a lot of possibilities.

I'm teaching a friend to play Malifaux, and Samuel Hopkins is his favorite model.  I warned him ahead of time that it wasn't the "best" but we aren't playing cut throat games.  He's already gotten the hang of dragging Sam along with the Judge, and every time he drops Debt to the Guild and Rapid Fires, something dies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing about the above debate.

It is not about exactly how the English language works or about logical language "cookies and lollipops" not withstanding.

The rule is simply as played, LLC does not stack with extra armor applied.  Thus it is played, strictly speaking you can persist with endless arguments about wording and parsing punctuation, makes no difference.  You go to any tournament or game event anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, LLC does not stack with other armor, certainly does not at my gaming table.  I'm not going to debate it, there is no point, it is simply the way the community interpreted the rule to the extent that I don't think Wyrd has ever even FAQ'd it (I could be wrong here), so yeah if you want to you can debate how the wording on the card could be better to exclude all the possible events/expansions prior, present and future to function perfectly as intended.....

Or you simply accept that its the rule as intended, accepted and in the spirit of the game and then play on with fun for all.

Alternatively we could engage in a fruitless linguistic debate on this forum about a widely accepted rule which 99% of the gaming community is content with, and frustrate everyone of us over what is essentially a triviality.

Me I'm going to play and I strongly suggest everyone else joins me.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information