Buhallin

It doesn't really matter what the distribution is, it's going to be consistent. Yes, you'll flip more bad cards, but you're still going to waste good ones that come up, and that will occur in the same proportion as for other actions. I'm not sure how you can't consider it an impact. There are a finite number of "good" cards in the deck. Assuming no twists at all, you'll get to see and use them all as you work through the deck. Once you start introducing to the equation, you're losing those "good" cards - not only for the current action, but for future ones. A simple example is assuming you've got a 6, 11 as the next two cards. With a not only are you stuck with the 6, but your next duel which would have had the 11, doesn't. That means an action is potentially going to fail, or require cheating, which burns resources. IMHO, you have to consider the upsides. You cannot isolate the drawback of H2W and use it to beat on a mechanic you don't like without acknowledging that there is some balance there. If a H2W2 model eats a Red Joker, that didn't occur out of the blue; at the very least, the controller chose to use the model in order to get its upsides. They took a gamble and it blew up on them.

First off I DON'T think it's a good strategy, and I think we should leave it to Wyrd to say if they think it is or not, rather than projecting our opinions on them. But I do think that if it wasn't intended, they've had numerous opportunities to change it through three major errata passes and uncounted minor ones. So, yeah. This is where we disagree. Unlike dice-based games, Malifaux is deterministic once the deck is down. What can change between a and :-fate:-fate flip? Consider two simple examples, same cards, different order. 1) 12, 10, 3, 9. 2) 3, 9, 12, 10. In case (1), the extra :-fate turns a moderate into a weak. In the second, you burn two solid cards which could have applied during the next duel. When you add those extra , you're burning cards from your deck. That can go either way, but IMHO it's certainly an extra risk, primarily because there are far more bad cards than good. Every time you lose a 10+ to a negative flip, it hurts your overall performance for the rest of the turn. It's a duel you have to cheat when you might not otherwise, which costs you resources, or simply outright fail. My apologies if I overstated your case, but at no point during this discussion did you address any of the benefits you get from H2W. You were focusing exclusively on the drawback. It seemed a reasonable assumption that you felt there was no upside to the ability, or at the very least one that was so minimal as to not be worth considering. I was filling in a gap in your presentation, and did so badly. It certainly wasn't intended as a strawman. Which brings me to the general tone. Every paragraph managed to be insulting at some level or other. If that's your idea of civil, I'd hate to see it when it actually got nasty. Judging Wyrd's intent by their actions doesn't deserve the condescension, I think I've shown a passingly reasonable understanding of probability and risk, nothing in our discussion has even hinted that I'm a player who "loves to win no matter how" or doesn't enjoy a close game - quite the opposite, really. Since I consistently defend the benefits of Seamus having H2W2, it would seem that if your evaluation is indeed correct, I'm the sort of player who enjoys LOSING no matter how So please, calm it down a bit. Nothing being discussed here deserves that much unpleasantness.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. Card management - including Joker-hunting - is part of the strategy of Malifaux. It's not like we're dealing with dice here. No, they're really not. If you have half your deck left, you've got 26 cards. Assuming you need 5 for each duel, 4 of those are damage. But only two of those are added by H2W. If you managed 5 attacks, all maximizing the , you've got about a 40% chance of seeing it make a difference. But there's not much out there that'll get 5 attacks before it goes back over to your opponent, who will then burn more of your cards. Yeah, 40% is high - but 5 attacks against a any model with H2W 2 probably means they'd be dead without it anyway. And that's in an absolutely ideal situation for your scenario. I've played rezzers since the day I started, and I can count on one hand the times I've seen this come up. On the other hand, literally every attack against a H2W2 model you're seeing the benefit of it being effectively impossible to cheat damage on it. That's huge beyond words. Is it a gamble? Yes, just like a number of other things in Malifaux, it's not all upside. Everything is a choice and a compromise. If you end up in that situation, then it hasn't "robbed you of what your skill has achieved", because your skill has achieved nothing. You chose to take a risk - a gamble, if you will - and it didn't pay off. That choice is your skill. If your opponent is trying to delve for the Joker and you can't/don't do anything about it, that's a failing of your skill. It's entirely up to you to dislike it or not - I certainly can't tell you what you will and won't like. But to pretend that there's no benefit to H2W, or that it's all some random bolt-from-the-heavens that strikes down your poor model simply isn't the case. If you're going to run them, you take that chance. In general, it's a big benefit. Occasionally, it backfires. That's the nature of the game.

How about when Chompy pulls a Black Joker during a Yo-yo strike, and was stuck there for McMourning's entire crew to carve him up? (Pre-errata, of course). IMHO, the joker complains are largely perceptual bias. It doesn't really happen that often, but it's very memorable when it does. I've had people cheat to severe on me against models without H2W far, FAR more often than I've had Seamus eat a Red Joker on the :-fate:-fate flips. Yes, Armor doesn't have the same potential drawback, but it also doesn't have as much benefit. As Q says, your opponent has to burn resources to try and overcome H2W. You're also burning a lot of high cards from their deck that go away wasted. That's HUGE. The Hard to Wound does have a drawback to it - let's call it a 10 point drawback. But it's got at least 3-4 different advantages at 5 points each. Overall, I believe H2W is a very solid advantage, it's just that the advantages are much more subtle and less memorable than when the Red Joker hits.

Yes - but getting to 0 wounds isn't the same as being killed. If a model heals before being removed, it's not actually killed.

Bete would bury, but Levi wouldn't get an Abomination out of it as she doesn't actually die. One With the Night buries and heals her, so the spell doesn't kill her.

I'm really confused by this. Nobody gets to choose their faction or crew in response - at least in theory, players reveal their factions at the same time, you flip for strategies, and then you pick your crews separately and independently, with them revealed at the same time. You then pick schemes. Things like what you're describing make me think you're doing something wrong. Not "wrong" in the snarky sense of "You shouldn't play that way" but wrong in the sense of "You're trying to fix problems that don't exist because you don't understand the actual rules." Maybe you do, and that's fine - people have said repeatedly that if you really want to play that way, it's fine. But the way you seem to want to play Malifaux will, in the experience of a lot of us, lead to MORE problems. For example, Malifaux does have some masters who are generally considered better than others, and some who are better against other factions than others. As a simple example, I like McMourning against Arcanists, because he's fast and has less need of corpses than, say, Nicodem, and all the Arcanists except Marcus (who is generally less used) are construct-heavy. Playing fixed subfactions isn't going to do much to help Nicodem against Colette. So, there's really no reason to be this defensive. I don't think anyone is telling you that you can't play the game fixed-crew locked to subfaction. We're just confused as to why you see the need to. It's really not about playing competitively vs. casual - which you're starting to border on insulting over. But it does seem to me like you're trying to fix problems that simply don't exist, and you're making a worse (less balanced, less interesting, more repetitive) game in the process.

Well, that didn't take long.

You seem to have a rather skewed view of what it takes to get to "This will be easy". Crew selection goes both ways. You need to deliver a message to my rezzers? Seamus is a good start - Trail of Fear, Terrifying, Undead Psychosis, and the Avatar of Dread all make that a very unpleasant prospect even before I start including other models. I'd probably also throw in a Hanged - a Horrifying hit and a locked for the rest of the game will pretty much take a model out of consideration for Delivery if there's another Terrifying to deal with. I MIGHT even take the Copycat, as Mistaken Identity can turn your flyer's "Almost got you" into a "Err, where'd he go George?" Or I might take McMourning, whose incredible speed will make it very hard to Deliver to him even before you have to survive a turn of his displeasure. Or Kirai, who has so many movement options getting anywhere near her will be a chore. If your group really wants to lock your crews to subfactions without exception, that's your choice and preference. If you don't want to buy any more models, that's also your choice. But please don't imply that strategy-before-crew somehow makes auto-win crews the norm - it really doesn't.

Well, if they're picking crews before the strategy is known, then pretty much by raw definition they're missing out on picking crews after strategy is known, right? Don't get me wrong - I understand your point. I'm not trying to say that their approach to fluff is any worst. A "behind the lines" ongoing campaign can be fun and if that's what they want to do then more power to them. BUT... Malifaux isn't other games. It's not designed with that in mind. I think this is the part most of us take exception to: List switching in Malifaux isn't optimizing, or powergaming, or purely Competitive. It's a core part of the balance and fluff of the game, and picking crews after strategy doesn't violate fluff or put you in the powergaming realm. The objection to crafting crews feels very much like it's brought over from other game systems, and it doesn't really fit Malifaux very well.

I think that over time you'll find the opposite. There are indeed a number of crew/strategy combinations that are so bad it's a foregone conclusion. Competitive or not, that's not really fun for anyone. So what happens, in my experience, is that people tend to drift to a few very generalist crews who aren't hosed at anything. I want a fun, challenging game - taking two hours to ritually stomp Rasputina into the ground in a foregone conclusion because she flipped Plant Evidence isn't an enjoyable game. Personally, I think picking crews after you know the objectives is one of the best ideas Malifaux ever came up with. It's not just "Two random armies just happened to be out walking and stumbled into each other". It's "Our contact in the Guild warehouse says they're shipping an artifact they pulled out of the sewers. Colette, you're the subtle one, think you can snatch it?" It has a touch of realism to it that I like, and an inherent narrative feel that makes a lot more sense than every battle starting with "Well, we don't know what they're going to have to do, but let's send Seamus." Up to you as you like to play, of course, but IMHO it's going to lead to more bad games and misses out on one of the more unique aspects of Malifaux. And, finally, sticking to theme is what you make of it A Hanged may not normally fit Seamus' theme, but you can use the Gallows Hag, or I frequently imagine one just drawn to the suffering and death that follows him everywhere, with Seamus occasionally trying to shoo them away. This is another thing Malifaux's lore excels at - there are more cross-factional connections in Malifaux's fluff than I think I've seen in any other minis game world ever. This gives a lot of flexibility in crew choice; honestly, if anything, giving Seamus nothing but his Belles to work with, ever, is probably less fluffy than mixing in some other models.

I think this is possible. Unlike Strikes, where we clearly have a difference between a Strike as an action and a strike as a generic term for an attack, I can't find anything that references Walk as anything other than an action. The wording also makes it clearly different from a lot of other effects such as leap, which say "Move this model up to its Cg" (or Wk, for this case). So, IMHO, "Walk" and "Walk Action" are interchangeable.

Out of curiosity, do you play with Strategies? One of the big things about Malifaux is that it's designed for your crew to be picked after you know your strategy. Reversing that leaves you with the potential for a crew to be stuck with a strategy they're completely unsuited for. Rasputina facing a Treasure Hunt or Plant Evidence comes to mind, but there are plenty of other examples. If you're just playing "kill the other guy" then yeah, fixed lists can work better since everyone basically knows the objective. For me, I love strategies and schemes, and dynamic crews are a big part of keeping that fun. Most strategies are balanced around the idea that they can be accomplished well by a faction, but not necessarily every possible crew in that faction. On the original topic: I like the Hanged with Seamus a lot. They both have a lot of Wp manipulation tools, and the Hanged is one of the few models in the game that can provide game-long debuffs to targets, and good ones at that. If you want to keep to the Seamus' Girls theme, check out the Gallows Hag for Empire of the Dead - she's a perfect Hanged model.

Your question about the Dispel illustrates my concern perfectly, turbodog. Consider: - Your question is basically "Where is the effect?" - The effect HAS to be on the mirror model for the aura to be centered there. There may be exceptions, but as far as I know, effects are on the model they affect. You cannot have the White Out effect on Rasputina for the rest of the turn but the mirror model being the center. - If the effect is on the mirror model, how did it get there? Nothing about Ice Mirror changes the target. And the last part is why I'm concerned, especially for Auras but also (at least a little bit) for pulses. I think all pulses and auras have an implicit target of the caster if not otherwise specified. Nothing in Ice Mirror lets you change that target. Measuring range from another model is irrelevant, because that still doesn't reposition the effect. Another element to consider is that Ice Mirror says "When casting a spell..." Once you're done casting White Out, you're no longer casting a spell, so the condition for Ice Mirror are gone. So even if did put the effect on Raspy but continue to measure it from the mirror, I don't think that would persist throughout all further range measurements for the duration of the spell. <shrug> Sorry to be the downer on this - I play Raspy too, and she certainly wouldn't suffer to see the little boost. But by the letter of the rules I'm just finding too many question marks.

It's not an issue with Magical Extension, because in that case the totem is the one who's actually doing the casting. But it's not just Raspy. He's commonly overlooked, but Nicodem and his Vultures can use Eyes and Ears to do exactly what Ice Mirror does, only at unlimited range and The Fog is 6 inches instead of 3. I can't think of any others, but there certainly could be more in the future. I'm a software engineer, so logic flow and corner cases are my bread and butter (literally ) It tends to promote a certain precision in rules application, and a desire to understand why things do what they do, which in turn leads to an even greater desire for precision. It can lead me into trouble from time to time That said, I can certainly agree that this one is odd. I'll stand by the read that it looks like technically pulses can be mirrored, but auras can't, but that is far more confusing than I'd like.

Mostly it's just a matter of wanting to play it right. I'm a stickler for the rules. While I don't think it would break Raspy, it might be overly powerful with Nicodem, who can do the same thing (only more), or some future model that does strange things. In general, I try to leave the "would it be game breaking?" concerns to Wyrd, and just play the game as it's printed.

Possibly I'm losing it Mainly I remember at some point that I was disappointed because I liked the White Out Mirror trick, and for some reason it came up that it wouldn't work. Damned if I can find it now, though. It might even be that I'm remembering realizing that it didn't fully block LOS... <shrug> At this point I've largely confused myself. I do think Auras raise a compelling concern about where the effect lands that I'd like to see addressed, though. I'd be inclined to let Pulses have it without further concern, but Auras worry me.

Assuming you allow it to be placed on the mirror (which I still don't think you can ) here's my thoughts: 1b. The effect would pretty much have to be on the mirror, so Dispel would need to be case on the mirror. 2b. "This model" would still be the Silent One, as it's the one casting the spell. And briefly, let me elaborate a bit on the "Why I don't think you can" bit, since it may have been a bit disjointed: Ice Mirror changes where you measure range from, but it does nothing to change the legal targets of the spell. Auras and Pulses that don't specify another target go from the caster of the spell. There's probably a stronger argument that you could do this for Pulses, but Auras (as noted above) actually require an effect to remain on the target. Ice Mirror doesn't let you do anything to place the effect on the mirror. But, again, that does contradict Ropetus, and I can't find whatever thread I'm remembering us discussing that in, so take it for what it's worth.

Getting pulses/auras off the Mirror used to be viable, but they changed it recently. I honestly don't remember the exact source, but I'm sure it happened I'll see if I can dig up the exact ruling on it, but in the meantime you'll have to trust Edit: Here's the ruling saying it works: http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?22688-Ice-Mirror-and-White-Out&highlight=mirror+aura I'm still hunting for why I thought that had changed. I remember being disappointed when it did, but I'm still trying to figure out why it did... ---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ---------- Okay, here's what I've come up with. I can't find whatever thread we discussed this in, and it contradicts Ropetus's response in the linked thread, but here's why I think we came up with it. Both pulses and auras are based on an area around the affected model. Even though it says to measure range from the mirror, Icy Mirror doesn't change what model the pulse/aura is actually "on", so the center of the aura/pulse doesn't change. I really wish I could find the exact thread I'm remembering, but I'm pretty sure that was the logic. Take it as you will.

Seamus vs. Zoraida with a pretty standard Neverborn crew - Twins, Stiched, etc. Manifest and run into the middle of the group, everyone of them failed their Terror checks. Seamus inflicted massive damage without even activating as everything ran away and got Wicked-smacked. I've also managed to get a Hanged hit in on Pandora one or twice, which is just beyond awesome to watch.

Awesome I was hoping it was your work when I saw the deck listed. Finally, it shall be mine!! And congrats on going legit, so to speak

Wicked only adds in damage, so no other effects even if you cause damage.

Interesting changes. Going to take a bit to assimilate, but at the very least I'm glad to see a Mosquito fix in there One request for future updates: Would it be possible to highlight "new" changes for each revision? It's a hefty list, and the ability to quickly see what is new and what was previously known would be a big help. ---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ---------- The Rules page itself has PDF links that look relatively printer-friendly, although they do have a background color to them.

You were correct. The v1 version of Ice Mirror made the bounce the originator, but that was removed for v2. Not sure if anyone in your group has been around long enough to be remembering that, or maybe has an old v1 card floating around to cause confusion, but it's one of those subtle changes I missed