tattyted Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 the hard to wound 2 and red joker thing is, like all things malifaux, dependent on situation. Yes, if you have only half a deck left to flip, you have already flipped the black j and the red is still to come out then yes I accept that htw2 might just become a liability to your resser opponent. But as a Seamus player I would happily take that risk. If the red j is in your hand it is in effect useless a you cant cheat it in. And it can only be played once a turn unless you have some rare ability (Zoraida for example) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRC Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. I'm not sure how you can deny it. There are so many non-living models that it has no effect on; most of the remainder have good willpower, abilities that boost their willpower, or an ability that protects them from terror. Even after you get through all that, you still need to be able to put multiple enemies in the radius to really get any value out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozz Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I agree with what CRC said, but the other option is putting multiple terror causing models around something you want to flee and making them cycle through cards so they fail and cheat eventually, or possibly cycle the red joker.And for the H2W Argument, the response in saying it is a better chance of a black joker is fairly irrelevant IMO. This is because, that is 1 action wasted, yes that for the Seamus player is a good thing, but you have more, however, with H2W you usually only take weak dmg, red joker means you take Sever + another flip. So say i am hitting Seamus with a Lelu getting his flay trigger that is 10 DG and poison 2 so i must hit him and not flip the black joker once more before he activates to kill him.On the other hand, yes, if the red joker has been used, it is a brilliant ability as you are far more likely to take less damage, but until then, it has the potential to cause you to die faster, and it also stops your opponents cheating high if you have cheated/stoned first as they are never going to get to cheat (Bar Lilith, Lady J and a couple of others) Point is, with red joker around and flipping 4 cards per flip, he loses a LOT of his wounds fast. Edited February 16, 2012 by Ozz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buhallin Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 There are so many non-living models that it has no effect on; most of the remainder have good willpower, abilities that boost their willpower, or an ability that protects them from terror. There are certainly plenty of nonliving models in the game, but I think the rest is overstated. The vast majority of minions have a Wp from 4-6. It's pretty rare to go above that, which means a 6-8 to beat a pretty standard Terrifying -> 12 check. Not insurmountable, but also very possible to fail and make the opponent cheat on. I'm not sure what abilities you're talking about that boost Wp - most of the ones I can think of (Stubborn, Fear Not Death) don't help with Terrifying checks. Same for abilities that protect from Terror - except for the previously mentioned Construct/Undead/Spirit/etc, there's a pretty short list of abilities that make a model immune to Terrifying. Terrifying isn't an ability that's going to win a game on its own. But you can certainly reinforce it to make it more effective, and while it doesn't fit the priorities of the "Killing matters most" crowd, the impact of failed morale duels can be pretty devastating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 You could just as easily claim that Seamus is almost invulnerable as the increased negative flips mean there is more chance of flipping the black joker. I find this to be the ludicrous statement. Firstly Bigkid, I've never denied that it could be entirely my skills with Seamus that is the issue, but I also play Kirai and Pandora, and I never have any trouble winning with them, so I do have some amount of knowledge of the game. I very much regard your skills as a painter, and if your meta is a tough one and you can still win with Seamus I'd love to have pointers. That said your arguments against my points have already been addressed. Firstly, your assertion that the black joker coming up has equal weight to a red joker flip is what is what is incorrect. In Malifaux the overwhelmingly most common flip on dmg is a weak dmg. So purely on a dmg flip potential a Black joker often means not achieving a dmg of 2. Conversely a Red Joker coming up on Dmg is often worth vastly more than even 2 successful hits. Let's look into this. The most average dmg stat line on a melee model tends to be something like 2/3/5, so just getting the red joker, before you even take into account the extra dmg flip, is equal to 2.5 successful strikes. Adding that extra flip gives you a dmg of 7 or 8 on one attack, which translates into 3.5-4 successful attacks, and let's face it Seamus is not hard to hit with a Def of 4 and no defensive abilities or triggers, so this one attack wipes out 2/3 of Seamus' life in one go, added on to all the other little hits he takes and you have one fragile master. As to your "have a belle pull him out of combat" suggestion, again that argument could be said for any master who has access to lures. That must mean Pandora, the Dreamer, Zoraida, and Lilith are even more survivable because they all have ready access to lure as well via Lilitu, and ALL of them have extra added abilities, stats, or triggers that make each of them far more difficult to kill than Seamus is. Terrifying is not addressed by his avatar form, because the designers have said Avatars were not intended to patch or serve as must includes for any master. If you feel that Seamus' Terrifying abilities need his avatar, then you are admitting that a good chunk of his base master abilities are hardy worthwhile, and that Seamus' cache is really 0, as it will cost you his base cache to even have the option of manifesting, and you will be functionally without Fast for at least the first 2 turns of the game, as you will be burning that action to cast Face of Death, which won't do anything because you need his avatar to make his Terrifying work. But even then Terrifying is less useful than Harmless or Irresistible is. Firstly, because Harmless and Irresistible work on just about everything, unless a specific rule states otherwise. Even models who are immune to influence have to take this influence based defensive ability because they are not the defender in the duel. Terrifying ONLY works on living models, and they only need to test once. Once they have passed the check they no longer have to check against that ability again unless something happens that reasserts it against them. In a 1 vs 1 situation Terrifying will almost never work because the model only needs to test once, and the target number is often low enough that a 7 is often enough to cause you to succeed the check. Which means that about half the cards in the deck will let you succeed without needing to cheat. Next, perversely, but totally understandably, a sizable percentage of the models that are susceptible to Terrifying are have abilities that: A) Render them immune, I.E. Frozen Heart. Have high WP. C) Have use SS. Terrifying is only really useful, as has been said before, if you can subject multiple susceptible models to it at the same time, and preferably from multiple sources. Other than that, pretty pointless. If anyone who honestly believes Seamus is a solid competitive master and is ever in the Champaign area, please let me know, I'll buy you dinner and some drinks to pump you for how I'm doing it wrong, because I would dearly love to be proven wrong on my conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidicide Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Terrifying is only really useful, as has been said before, if you can subject multiple susceptible models to it at the same time, and preferably from multiple sources. Other than that, pretty pointless. I disagree that you have to subject multiple models to it at the same time, but other than that I basically agree. Seamus is supposed to be about fear, and most things don't even care. He should have something similar to Anathema on his base form. It is his shtick, and it's sad to see it mostly useless for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buhallin Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) The most average dmg stat line on a melee model tends to be something like 2/3/5, so just getting the red joker, before you even take into account the extra dmg flip, is equal to 2.5 successful strikes. Adding that extra flip gives you a dmg of 7 or 8 on one attack, which translates into 3.5-4 successful attacks, and let's face it Seamus is not hard to hit with a Def of 4 and no defensive abilities or triggers, so this one attack wipes out 2/3 of Seamus' life in one go, added on to all the other little hits he takes and you have one fragile master. All of this is pretty much true (well, except for the last line, which is a matter of opinion). But it doesn't look at the other side of the equation at all. Namely, what does Hard to Wound 2 give you? Simple: It means that it requires extraordinary circumstances for your opponent to cheat damage against you. Hard to Wound 1 can be overcome, if not easily then at least by a number of models. With Hard to Wound 2 it is effectively impossible to get an even damage flip. That's a pretty big deal. It means that high cards accomplish nothing, and that held Red Joker won't smack Seamus in the face. It means that if your opponent wants to make this work they can't draw the Red Joker, and if they want to get it back in play they'll have to burn it at a less than ideal point, and it'll still be gone until next turn. It's also far more meta, but every high card that goes by on a twist is a high card wasted, and that takes its toll as well. I suspect this may be one of those things that's like whether or not you hold the Black Joker when you draw it - a matter of personal playstyle. But given the choice between my opponent being able to cheat to Severe on multiple attacks, or having to spam through half his deck hoping for the Red Joker for damage, I don't consider the Red Joker risk to be the "I'm squishy" side of that equation. Edit: As a final thought on this - when I try to mentally think about the number of times I've seen a Red Joker flip against Seamus, and the number of times I've seen someone cheat the Red Joker after managing an even damage flip, I know which one scares me more. Or, look at it from the other side: Which would you rather have if you were facing Seamus - the chance to cheat the damage, or a slightly improved chance to get the Red Joker during spammed attacks? Edited February 16, 2012 by Buhallin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigkid Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 If anyone who honestly believes Seamus is a solid competitive master and is ever in the Champaign area, please let me know, I'll buy you dinner and some drinks to pump you for how I'm doing it wrong, because I would dearly love to be proven wrong on my conclusions. I'm pretty sure I posted: 'I find that even in his current state he is a viable Master against most opponents (other than the big 4), he just needs a little push.' Hardly a statement declaring him a 'solid competitive Master' but hey ho. Guess we'll have to disagree as to his current abilities. Malifaux, more than any other game I've played (and before you say it, I've played a hell of a lot!!) seems to encourage the theory side of things. And let's face it, any Master in the game can be dissected and found wanting when compared to specific opponents in specific situations. I'll continue to use Seamus. I'll continue to win my fair share of games. And I'll continue to enjoy losing with him when it happens. I very much regard your skills as a painter... Cheers mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchethead Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I don't rate as a Seamus player, but I will agree with Fetid regarding Hard to Wound in general. As a dedicated Resurrectionist, it's a boon and a curse, moreso than I'd like to think was intended (but then, who am I to say?). If I had my way, the red joker would no longer apply the bonus damage flip during a negative twist. I honestly have no issue with it trumping the negative modifier - to me, that's a necessary symmetry shared with the black joker and positive flips - but having the additional damage above and beyond the severe is definite overkill and tends to make Hard to Wound a double-edged sword in situations where it really shouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valcurdra Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) All of this is pretty much true (well, except for the last line, which is a matter of opinion). But it doesn't look at the other side of the equation at all. Namely, what does Hard to Wound 2 give you? Simple: It means that it requires extraordinary circumstances for your opponent to cheat damage against you. Hard to Wound 1 can be overcome, if not easily then at least by a number of models. With Hard to Wound 2 it is effectively impossible to get an even damage flip. That's a pretty big deal. It means that high cards accomplish nothing, and that held Red Joker won't smack Seamus in the face. It means that if your opponent wants to make this work they can't draw the Red Joker, and if they want to get it back in play they'll have to burn it at a less than ideal point, and it'll still be gone until next turn. It's also far more meta, but every high card that goes by on a twist is a high card wasted, and that takes its toll as well. I suspect this may be one of those things that's like whether or not you hold the Black Joker when you draw it - a matter of personal playstyle. But given the choice between my opponent being able to cheat to Severe on multiple attacks, or having to spam through half his deck hoping for the Red Joker for damage, I don't consider the Red Joker risk to be the "I'm squishy" side of that equation. Edit: As a final thought on this - when I try to mentally think about the number of times I've seen a Red Joker flip against Seamus, and the number of times I've seen someone cheat the Red Joker after managing an even damage flip, I know which one scares me more. Or, look at it from the other side: Which would you rather have if you were facing Seamus - the chance to cheat the damage, or a slightly improved chance to get the Red Joker during spammed attacks? This statement is exactly why hard to wound 2 is awesome and not a disadvantage as some claim. Forcing your opponent to keep the red joker in the deck and just hope for a lucky flip is a huge advantage to the Seamus player. Sure your opponent will occasionally flip the red joker on Seamus but they have absolutely no control over when this happens. In most cases the joker will be wasted on a pointless flip your opponent doesn't really care about. Meanwhile if i get the red joker in my hand I can focus attack with the flintlock and use a SS for a pretty much guaranteed 11-14 damage on whomever I want. Also I think we all realize that Seamus is not invincible by any means and nor should he be, I agree his SS cache is a little low too. But if you are having trouble keeping him alive on a consistent basis your are doing something wrong because he is far from fragile especially considering the support offered by the rest of his crew. Edited February 17, 2012 by Valcurdra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 This statement is exactly why hard to wound 2 is awesome and not a disadvantage as some claim. Forcing your opponent to keep the red joker in the deck and just hope for a lucky flip is a huge advantage to the Seamus player. Sure your opponent will occasionally flip the red joker on Seamus but they have absolutely no control over when this happens. In most cases the joker will be wasted on a pointless flip your opponent doesn't really care about. Meanwhile if i get the red joker in my hand I can focus attack with the flintlock and use a SS for a pretty much guaranteed 11-14 damage on whomever I want. Also I think we all realize that Seamus is not invincible by any means and nor should he be, I agree his SS cache is a little low too. But if you are having trouble keeping him alive on a consistent basis your are doing something wrong because he is far from fragile especially considering the support offered by the rest of his crew. HtW1 is awesome. It offers almost the same protection - it requires extraordinary numbers to win a Cb duel by 11+ and gain the ability to cheat. Sure it's a bit less good against people with innate +damage flips, but then they still need to beat you by 6 (also not particularly common) to get a straight flip. It takes a charging model with +damage flips to be able to cheat vs you at a Cb difference of 1-5. All of those situations are not particularly common and will not happen often. HtW2, by comparison, pretty much guarantees your opponent will never cheat against you, but the chance is still there with innate +damage flip and/or charging models. The thing is, in the *majority* of circumstances in the game, your opponent will not be to cheat against you regardless of if you have HtW1 or HtW2. However, HtW2 simply increases the chance of Red Jokers after repeated attacks, by a large amount (+1 card in a small sample size like a deck of cards is a big percentage chance change). HtW would be much better if they replaced it in its entirety with: "Hard to Wound: A player may not cheat during damage flips against this model" That's basically what it's there to do anyway. Alternately, they need to do away with Red Jokers always being choosable on -ve flips (and honestly, the power of the Red Joker in general as it's far too game breaking; no one should win games based on one lucky flip). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRC Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Because I got curious, I ran the numbers. The odds of flipping the red joker are: Even: 1.85% : 3.63% :-fate: 5.35% :-fate:-fate: 6.99% It's not that big a deal. (positive twists are exactly the same.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I could be wrong, but I don't think you can calculate the percentage because the available pool of cards changes every time you draw a card. If you haven't seen the red joker the odds of it coming up increase significantly with every card that is drawn that is not the joker. In which case I must suffer the worst luck of any player in the world because the only model I use which suffers the red joker on dmg flips with any regularity is Seamus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Because I got curious, I ran the numbers. The odds of flipping the red joker are: Even: 1.85% : 3.63% :-fate: 5.35% :-fate:-fate: 6.99% It's not that big a deal. (positive twists are exactly the same.) You didnt run the numbers correctly and/or you don't understand how the odds of flipping a card as the turn goes on get smaller, I think. Your deck size, at the start of the turn, is generally around 47 (54, minus 6 for your hand, minus 1 for initiative flip). As the turn progresses, the chance of flipping the red joker becomes progressively higher. Assuming it is in the deck and not flipped during one of the attack flips, lets say we attack Seamus twice with an average model, and hit with triple negative twists. The deck is now 45 cards (47 minus 2 attack flips). You have an 8/45 chance of one of those two attacks hitting a Red Joker - that's 18%. Now lets say some other stuff happened first and 5 cards were flipped, taking the deck down to 40. And lets say Seamus gets hit 3 times. The chance is now 12/40 - 30%. These occurences are very far from uncommon. After a few activations, in reality, many more than 5 cards are usually burned and Seamus can easily be targeted with more than 3 attacks. If you get a few activation into a turn and a couple of models lay into him, the odds are very high that if you havent seen an RJ yet, you will. The numbers of cards you're flipping per damage flip on Seamus (4) is much, much higher than the number of cards you are flipping for most other events that occur during a turn (most frequently 1, sometimes 2) and so as a percentage of all cards flipped during a turn, Seamus' damage flips will count for most of them if you focus him. Even if Seamus isn't hit many times, the chances are that if you see an RJ you will see it on a damage flip for him. Maths is your friend but you have to get it right Edited February 17, 2012 by Calmdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidicide Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 So I'm not really on-board with this whole "Hard to Wound 2 sucks because of the Red Joker" train, but regardless of that -- the problem for people really seems to be that the Red Joker is severe + a flip. Otherwise, everyone's on-board with the negative twists. Also, a note on math: Can we stop with it? Honestly, we are forced to try it in such a vacuum that it becomes almost meaningless. For example: What if I'm winning the duel with Seamus, having flipped an 8 (total 11). My opponent flipped a 2 (total 7). He decided to cheat to a 13 to make sure he hits Seamus (Opp total 18 vs my total 11). That's an even flip, so it's a negative 2 twist because of HtW2. I cheat down with an ace, giving me a 4. Now my opponent has a positive, which makes it only 1 negative twist. Woo! I even made an ace useful for something besides headshot. I'm just saying that what cards came up in a turn, what's in my hand, what's in their hand, their deck, my soulstone pool, etc all factor in. Let's not get in a big math argument about all this jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 The problem with Cheating down, and trust me I've played with doing it, is that you are still being hit. You ideally want the opponent to miss the attack. If they miss not only can't they get the red joker, but they don't do any damage. If you are cheating down attacks that gets directed at Seamus then he is going to drop almost as fast as if the joker came up. You are often going to try to get the opponent to miss, which since you are going to have to cheat first more often than not, 4 Def is below the average CB stat, you aren't going to have as much of an option to decide when it's advantageous to cheat down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 So I'm not really on-board with this whole "Hard to Wound 2 sucks because of the Red Joker" train, but regardless of that -- the problem for people really seems to be that the Red Joker is severe + a flip. Otherwise, everyone's on-board with the negative twists. Also, a note on math: Can we stop with it? Honestly, we are forced to try it in such a vacuum that it becomes almost meaningless. For example: What if I'm winning the duel with Seamus, having flipped an 8 (total 11). My opponent flipped a 2 (total 7). He decided to cheat to a 13 to make sure he hits Seamus (Opp total 18 vs my total 11). That's an even flip, so it's a negative 2 twist because of HtW2. I cheat down with an ace, giving me a 4. Now my opponent has a positive, which makes it only 1 negative twist. Woo! I even made an ace useful for something besides headshot. I'm just saying that what cards came up in a turn, what's in my hand, what's in their hand, their deck, my soulstone pool, etc all factor in. Let's not get in a big math argument about all this jazz. The point about the maths isnt to show a specific probability of being hit by an RJ. The point is to show that the numbers are very high, and to disprove the previous post with the terribly bad maths Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidicide Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 The point about the maths isnt to show a specific probability of being hit by an RJ. The point is to show that the numbers are very high, and to disprove the previous post with the terribly bad maths Fair enough. My post wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather the inherent absurdity of trying to calculate realistic possibilities within a game of Malifaux that doesn't actually exist. Although an understanding of math/probabilities can and will help you in Malifaux, trying to get specific numbers is not a useful way to spend time. The problem with Cheating down, and trust me I've played with doing it, is that you are still being hit. You ideally want the opponent to miss the attack. If they miss not only can't they get the red joker, but they don't do any damage. If you are cheating down attacks that gets directed at Seamus then he is going to drop almost as fast as if the joker came up. You are often going to try to get the opponent to miss, which since you are going to have to cheat first more often than not, 4 Def is below the average CB stat, you aren't going to have as much of an option to decide when it's advantageous to cheat down. Ideally you do want the opponent to miss. I'm with you 100%. However, with a Df 4 or whatever, it just seems fairly unlikely. Regardless, my example was just in the given situation where you get lucky enough to cheat second. As you say, that won't happen as often as the reverse. I'm not saying cheating down is a fullproof strategy for victory. I'm saying that there are many factors that go into how many cards are getting flipped, etc, and therefore trying to calculate the probability of the big RJ is silly. I don't deny that it is more likely to come up with HtW2. More cards = greater probability. I think the math should really end there. Regardless, again, it seems like the main problem people have is the RJ's effect, not HtW2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewomie Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) disregard... i'm an idiot... sorry calmdown. lol Edited February 17, 2012 by Jewomie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JisaacT Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 This has become heated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidicide Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 This has become heated! Really? I feel like this has been quite civil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Calmdown, i have to ask... maybe i am reading this wrong, but how do you ever have an 8/45 chance of a red joker? there is still only one red joker... Like i said, i may be reading this wrong, and i know the math wasn't really the point here, i'm just curious where you got the 8. to me 8/45 means there are 8 jokers per 45 cards, and i know that's not what you're implying here... lol If you hit Seamus twice with triple negative twists, you draw 8 cards of your 45 card deck. You have 8 chances in 45 to draw the Red Joker, so I was saying that theres is an almost 18% chance that in those two attacks you'll be hit by a Red Joker, AND that is if it's one of the first things that happen in the turn. In reality its likely to be later when your deck is much smaller, and the chance of pulling RJ in a damage flip is much higher. This has become heated! It has? Looks like a quite civil discussion to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewomie Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 yeah, lol. i'm sorry. i got what you were saying just before you replied. haha You're quite right. that was my fault. *bows head in shame* lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Same, I feel overall this has been a civil conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malandres Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think this has been civilised...Just trying to figure where the hate is, is it with Seamus and H2W or is it with RJ????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.