Jump to content

Justin

Staff
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,191

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    130

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Justin

  1. June 13 - Parker Barrows

    in Wyrd Announcements

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Kyris said:

    Man, I've been wrong about just about every one of my predictions...

     

    that said, I am curious about why this is "outcast" exactly, it feels very "guild" to me; much like how Jack Daw, IMHO, should totally be a rezzer instead of an outcast.

     

    Is it just for balance reasons? you already had a guild master ready so this guy went into the "outcast" pile?

    Guild probably wouldn't be too keen on all the robbery. :)

    • Like 2

  3. Balance/Power Creep in Malifaux

    in Malifaux Discussion

    Posted

    Were competitive Rasputina lists running Ice Golems regularly before Shifting Loyalties came around? If they weren't, it's not a case of the Emissary replacing it, but a case of the Ice Golem being under powered and not seeing the table before Shifting Loyalties was ever printed.

    Also, is this actually a trend, or a single instance? Some models will always be better/worse (or at least perceived that way). To show that power creep is a problem with Shifting Loyalties as a whole, I think you need to show that this is a trend, and not just a single happenstance.

    More food for thought. Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. Enjoy the discussion. :)

  4. Balance/Power Creep in Malifaux

    in Malifaux Discussion

    Posted

    I think anyone would agree that (assuming the same Wounds, let's say 5) a model with Df 5 and no defensive abilities is significantly easier to kill than a model with Df 4, Armor 8, Hard to Kill, and Regeneration 4.

    At some point, defensive abilities do make up for/out class sheer Df totals. We can argue about where that line is. The point being: looking at stats alone does not tell you whether or not the models are better.

    • Like 2
    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    Balance/Power Creep in Malifaux

    in Malifaux Discussion

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Kadeton said:

    Are there any combinations that you find particularly egregious? Most of the non-thematic combinations I see are just any old Master with the 'generically strong / high value' models like Austringers and December Acolytes, but it sounds like you're thinking more of strong non-thematic synergies. I've also found most thematic crews work perfectly well in competitive environments.

    The aspect that I think this analysis fails to take into account is an overall 'flattening' of model capabilities. In the earlier books, models were often highly specialised into a narrow role, with very good stats in that single strength compensated by weakness in other areas - the epitome of this is the Rotten Belle. Newer books have tended more toward generalists, with less outstanding strengths and acute specialisations, but fewer weaknesses. That doesn't mean that power creep hasn't happened at all (it's a natural process in game development) but I think Wyrd have done more than most to keep it in check.

    Indeed, this is a good post.

    I'm not really going to jump into the fray, but I want to steer the discussion a little. Far too often I see a premise thrown out and that premise is accepted automatically, then everyone just jumps to how to fix/prevent the problem (because that's sort of the fun part).

    But let's question this premise.

    I don't think a straight stat comparison between the books is an accurate representation of power creep. For one, it ignores point cost. Shifting Loyalties had relatively few lower costed models, so their stats would be higher on average. Also, stats need to be looked at against their accompanying abilities (if a model has Armor, for example, a lower Df doesn't mean as much).

    The real test is whether Shifting Loyalties models are all of a sudden replacing all the book 1 models. Look at models with similar points costs and roles/themes within the same Factions. Witchling Stalkers and Sanctioned Spellcasters are the same cost, in the same Faction, with a magic using theme. Have Sanctioned Spellcasters replaced Witchling Stalkers? Ice Dancers are very close in cost to December Acolytes (6 vs 7) and have the same synergies with Rasputina (Frozen Heart), have they replaced December Acolytes? Bunraku have the same cost as Waldgeists and Young Nephilim, have Bunraku replaced those models (different themes, but it won't always be perfect. In fact, if you say, "well, there's not really a comparable model..." then that's great!). If yes, then we have issues. But if no, or even "well, it depends..." then I don't think we do.

    I'm not going to draw the conclusions for you, as I am obviously bias, but those are the questions I would ask.

    • Like 13

  6. May 16th - Titania

    in Wyrd Announcements

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, retnab said:

    :+fate, and how many masters has each faction received in the last few years with the edition transition, one each?  This seems like a perfectly reasonable level of growth to me :) 

    Guild and Neverborn haven't seen a new Master since before second edition. (Though I suppose you could count the promotion of 1.5 Henchman to Masters as new Masters - I do not).

    • Like 4

  8. May 16th - Titania

    in Wyrd Announcements

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

    I think the card is the same.  The edges just don't appear to be trimmed.

    Indeed. The preview has the printer's bleed on. The excess edges would be cut off during the printing process.

    The cards are the same layout/design as always.

    • Like 3
    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

    Just that part mainly is why, but I didn't want to be accused of cherrypicking.

    When you play that a model normally could only eat their fill on their turn after ending the activation or that a slew of defensive triggers to defend against the crazy AP pig charges outside of normal activation,  but then have a slew of FAQs removing all the normal ways of stopping that/those model from doing horrid things... That's where I was asking for common sense because it's in the rulings recently done, not the rules as written, that are making the situation worse. I didn't need an entire thread to ask that very simple question.

    I like that the game has some of the most well written rules out there, but I'm simply asking why the rules in what seems a very specific case keeps trending towards a weird resolution when far less "broken" examples get Cuddled for the potential AP:Damage ratios.

    Well, the in the above line you quoted, I was saying that *usually* there is a reasonable way to resolve a rules question, without having to resort to an FAQ. When there is not, that's where the FAQ comes in. And most of your issues seem to be with the FAQ itself, ruling in a way you find counter-intuitive, so that's not really what I was talking about there.

    That said, it is not surprising you may disagree with some rulings in the FAQ. Everything in there, by definition, could have been interpreted in multiple ways. So if you had been interpreting a rule differently than how it ended up in the FAQ, I can understand how that may cause some frustration.

    In general, FAQs are not added to provide balance. They are, generally, added to provide clarity and consistency with the rules. As such, they are neither meant to help nor hinder specific models, but take an instance where players would disagree and give them a clear answer.

    I'll take two specific examples you seem to have problems with and try to provide some insight into why those decisions were made:

    First is Core Rule Question 51 which states that if a model has its Activation ended outside of its Activation (such as during Obey) there is no effect. This ruling was made because Activation is a very specifically defined game term. A model which is taking an Action outside of its Activation is not Activating, and therefore the Activation cannot be ended. This is not about common sense, or balance, but maintaining Activation as a very strict game term, which is important to the game as a whole. It also allows players who did not agree on the outcome of this situation to have a very clear answer for how to handle it.

    The second is the ruling in Abilities/Actions question 21 which states that models with Eat Your Fill can heal even when they are not Activating. For this, the exact wording of Eat Your Fill is important, so I'll quote it:

    Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model, this model may choose to heal all damage it has suffered and end its Activation.

    The way Eat Your Fill is worded, both the healing and the ending of the Activation are results of the model's choice to use the Ability. Ending the Activation is not a cost. If it were a cost, it would have been worded like this:

    Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model this model may choose to end its Activation to heal all damage it has suffered.

    In the above (hypothetical) example, ending the Activation is a cost which must be paid in order to heal. Had the above wording been the one printed, the ruling would have gone the opposite way. But, as Eat Your Fill is written, ending the Activation is not a cost which must be paid in order to heal, but merely one of the effects of the choice to use the Ability. Just because one of the effects cannot happen does not mean the entire Ability fizzles. I'll give another example where this is relevant, Killjoy's Cleaver:

    (1) Cleaver (Ml 6R / Rst: Df / Rg: y2): Target suffers 4/5/7 damage. After killing a model with this Attack, this model heals 2/3/4 damage.

    There are two effects there, dealing damage to an enemy, and healing damage. If both effects had to be valid for the action to be taken, Killjoy would be unable to kill enemy models while at full health (as models at full health cannot heal, and the entire attack would fizzle). It would be detrimental to the game to rule in this way.

    These ruling were not made to favor any particular models. And you may well disagree with them, that's fine! If they were completely unambiguous (and common sense as you say) they would not have needed to end up in the FAQ in the first place!

    I also want to add the caveat here that, over the years, I have become less and less inclined to post in depth explanations or answers in the rules forum, because it always seems that, years later, I end up quoted out of context (or even just changing my mind). It's also why FAQ answers frequently only have an answer without an explanation; all too often the explanation just ends up confusing things more. So please keep in mind that only the FAQ and actual rules are official. Please do not use this post to try to justify other rulings or formulate new questions. I am posting purely because you seem concerned about this, and I hope to shed some light on it for you. :) 

    • Like 12

  12. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Dogmantra said:

    @Justin I see what you're getting at with your post directed at me. I do find it a little unclear, and my original post was mostly in favour of something like santaclaws's idea to just add a couple of extra words to the new FAQ answer... It was more of a roundabout way of saying it :P but the main thing I'd like to add is that I feel left out because everyone else you have replied to got a smiley face can I please have one?

    pleaaaaase

    Oh, well then you get two. :):)

    • Like 2

  13. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

    Just curious, but why do you feel it's common sense for a model that normally would end it's activation to be able to Eat it's fill without doing so simply because another model makes it act?

    Ulix and War Pigs have gotten crazy buffed (Obey masters to a degree too, but they're the most egregious) and tbh it doesn't make sense why they can get around so many defensive triggers/requirements (usually) with all the rulings in the last few FAQs. You guys removed the effect of ending activation triggers (Sloth/Sub Zero etc.) from stopping obeyed models from finishing their charge, now you've went ahead and let them ignore a normal choice of healing or ending their activation. Paralyze doesn't save a crew from getting Pig charged like crazy, unless you kill it in one go it will continue healing and charging with an 8". It actually improves its charging ability since the minimum range to charge is almost non-existent then needing B2B, certainly not a common sense thing there.

    If the thought of Lynch blasting with a similarly priced upgrade a few more times (for example) is that much more appalling than getting 4-6(+) charge attacks off on average + very likely incidental healing... Well, please consider limiting the action to once per turn, like Lynch, even if it's still likely much better for the AP/Dmg that comes out of it.

    I am not entirely certain why you quoted the post you did, or why you keep referencing common sense.

    I was simply stating that I try to put entries in the FAQ based on what people find legitimately confusing, and not on everything which *can* be argued just because it can be argued. Hope that helps. :)

    As for Ulix, feel free to start a thread on the Gremlin forums and discuss it. At worst, people may have some advice for playing against it. And, if Ulix is too powerful, well, it's something to discuss.

  15. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Shadowdragon said:

    So, Outcasts #10, the Leveticus Channel thing. Is there a reason why it contradicts every other ability that also bases something off of the damage suffered? According to this, if a model heals half the damage suffered by the enemy and inflicts 10 damage to a model with armour +2 then it should only heal 4 damage, but in several different parts of the FAQ it says it should heal 5.

    Each FAQ is an individual case, and applies only to the question at hand. They are not meant to be applied broadly. That is straight out of the start of the FAQ. But yes, the way Channel is worded (with the word "exactly") is different than those other instances. :)

    • Like 1

  16. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    Just now, santaclaws01 said:

    I was mostly quoting the part I found important to this. And I would agree it would read like reminder text if it wasn't he rule book and the only place where the rules of Paralyzed are established and that it is stating that a paralyzed model can not engage models period. If "outside of b2b" was added after that statement then it would read like a reminder text. 

    It could have been written better. But, if the rulebook was written perfectly we wouldn't have an FAQ. :)

    • Like 4

  17. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

    With the paralyzed and being able to engage models in base, that directly contradicts the statement in the rule book's definition of paralyzed "and will therefore not engage enemy models.".

    That's not the full quote:

    "...the model's :melee range is 0 and will therefore not engage enemy models."

    The part you quoted is reminder text, which is broadly true, but unfortunately not true in all cases, and the FAQ clarifies this. Hope that helps. :)

  18. May FAQ

    in Malifaux Rules Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

    Nice to see a couple of answers finally in there, although I feel like the way flight is described via FAQ is a bit unclear. Given how there's nothing in the rulebook about flight in regards to FAQ rulings with not falling during a move, could this be a prelude to a "Season Two" rulebook a la Guild Ball recently did that would clear up and add some rules to put rulings like this physically in the rulebook? Especially now the rules are free.

     

    One other thing to point out, the answer to the question about Obeying a Charge implies that any attack, even one made by an enemy, stops that model from being a legal Obey target - e.g. I obey a Bayou Gremlin to walk out of an enemy Mature Nephilim's engagement range, the Nephilim makes a disengaging strike. That was an attack made during the course of an obey, so the answer implies that the Bayou Gremlin is no longer a legal Obey target for this activation. Same with my old hypothetical of "Zoraida Obeys a Taxidermist who summons a stuffed piglet, which is charged by Taelor" - an attack was made during the Obey, so is the Taxidermist no longer a valid Obey target?

    Do you really think the clause in Obey is talking about enemy attacks?

    I try to put questions in the FAQ that legitimately confuse people and come up in games. At the end of the day, the English language is ambiguous, we have very limited space to clarify the abilities on the cards themselves, and I am not perfect. While the rules can often be interpreted multiple ways, generally there is one very reasonable way to interpret them. And, as fun as theory crafting and arguing rules is (and it really can be, I'm not being sarcastic), it can muddy the waters for newer players. So if this is truly something you find confusing, feel free to start a thread. But if you are just going out on a theoretical ledge, it will not make it into the FAQ.

    • Like 7

  20. Different scale plastics?

    in Puppet Wars Unstitched

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, SpiralngCadavr said:

    They were a promo sprue that was printed before the game came out, when second edition was getting released. (If he doesn't like 'em, I'd be interested)

    This is correct.

    We gave them out as freebies and painting events and such, though they were never sold (to my knowledge). 

  21. Before 2E, what books were there?

    in Malifaux Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Legend said:

    Ah thank you so much for the quick responses! I'm not overly keen on listening to the fluff via audio, just because I like to read. But it's great seeing that I can download them all and wont have to fork out for all four books. 

    Thank you very much :lol:

    edit: would it be worth downloading Malifaux Rulebook 1 and Malifaux Rulebook 1.5? - from a fluff perspective? are they different in that regard?

    If memory serves 1.5 just got some "face lift" type of edits, so I would download that one and ignore the original. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

  I accept