Hatchethead

I feel Wyrd has done good with Book 3. There aren't many (if any) minions that make me drop a bucket, dance a jig or scream bloody murder. More options, yes. Auto-includes? Not many. That's a good thing, in my eyes. We have more models to play with but little that will make previous models obsolete. It's a different feel from Book 2, where every new minion made my eyebrows twitch. I agree with Nix in that avatars are the best way to gauge the shifting of the meta. As a Rezzer, I feel we've done very well. Kirai is super situational but still badass when it comes to needing a scary beatstick in the closing turns of a game, when Ikiryo alone just won't do. The other three are very nice. Seamus, arguably our weakest master in a competitive setting, suddenly feels viable with the inclusion of Anathema. Nico takes on a new unlife of his own. With the appearance of 29, Doug gets better at what he's already awesome at. Did we "win" the book? I dunno, but I feel we're pretty high on the podium.

I got a score of 8. Not sure what that means. According to the link for my gender/age range, I guess I'm pretty okay.

Heck no! Neverborn are hardly my forte. I'm especially lax in matters of the twins. On that topic, any contribution I could make to this particular thread would be dubious at best. I lurk, I learn. Balance discussions often assume the highest level of play possible, an arena wherein no one makes mistakes (as mistakes are a randomizing factor and should never be considered a balancing factor). But in doing so, we allow individuals to craft ideal scenarios to prove a point, if only because a world class player would never put themselves in a scenario that sees them at a disadvantage. The discussion ceases to be about the model as player skill becomes the sole point of contention. It's all very cyclical and self-defeating, more often than not. Which isn't to say I believe fruitful balance discussions are impossible. Just ... impossibly delicate. But I'm OT. Ignore me. /lurk

... and this is where the discussion falls down. We reach a boiling point where player skill enters the equation and both sides begin questioning individual skill or the skill of an individual's opponent. Suddenly, it's all hearsay. It doesn't matter what you say or what proof you provide as it can be discounted and dismissed as a factor of player skill (or lack thereof). Unless you're playing in a meta with a proven history of high caliber play and the recorded rankings to back it up, it becomes impossible to enjoy a reasonable discourse. I hate to see an otherwise interesting thread death spiral, but I suppose it's inevitable. Good discussion otherwise, gents.

... all models I lack experience with. Hmm. Hope to change that soon. Molly is pre-ordered, Dead Rider small box is on my desk, Datsue-ba is staring at me (disapprovingly) from my shelf. Stop looking at me, swan!

It was a great day, the day I realized Scalpel Slinging was not and what that meant.

In closing: Redheaded women are all :inlove: Ginger dudes are all P.S. I love Coco almost as much as McMourning.

Way to sidestep the ginger question, nerd. I demand a reckoning!

It's also important to note, as you mentioned, that a resist total must beat the casting total in order to resist the spell. Unlike most other simple duels, ties in a resist duel are in favor of the attacker (making it more like an opposed duel, in that regard).

Five. Sonnia, LJ, Pandora, Colette and Lilith. Add Doug to the mix and it's a ginger conspiracy!

Yeah. The final sentence of the red "Resist Example" is pretty clear. "Combat" is never really defined as encompassing only melee and ranged Strikes. It appears to include all forms of mental combat as well; Wp and Spell resist duels, for example.

Is "combat" ever defined as a game term encompassing only melee and ranged Strikes? Not trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely unsure.

I see. Well ... I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. If I had to whip up a ruling, I'd probably say that "Gamble Your Life" would end up with a positive or negative twist on the damage flip, dependent on the result of the opposed Wp duel. I see no reason to think otherwise. Hangman's Knot is fairly clear cut. It's a Spell with a Wp resist and a damage line, I see no reason why it wouldn't benefit from based on the casting flip versus resist flip result. Self-Loathing is a Spell with a resist and is therefore an attack. Regardless, it ends up with a casting total versus a resist total, giving you a differential. I see no reason why it couldn't be further modified beyond the mentioned in the Spell description. The flip cannot be cheated, but that doesn't mean it can't be modified. Say we have a Talent or Spell that reads: "Enemy models activating within 3" suffer Dg 1/2/3." Here I see a flip that cannot be modified with positive or negative twists (it specifically states "unmodified"). Even if it could be modified, there's no duel from which to draw and compare numbers, no differential ... unless the attacking model is under an effect that grants to all Dg flips, I suppose. That's just my take on it, but I honestly don't know. SIDE NOTE: I'm honestly not sure why "Gamble Your Life" specifies that the flip may be cheated. It's a damage flip and damage flips can be cheated by rule of page 45. I assume it is meant as reminder text and nothing more.

Nuts to your gender bias, Piggy.

So you're differentiating between a "fate modifier" and a "combat fate modifier"? Because you can have a fate modifier in a duel that has nothing to do with combat.

Don't forget the Hoff!

Maybe I should be harping on the fact that there are so many raven-haired folk ... *lights torch, grabs pitchfork*

Wyrd, I reject your fate modifier and substitute my own.

Positive or negative "fate modifier". I don't recall seeing the term "twist" in the Rules Manual, not in relation to ... I assume the term was abandoned after Book 1.

A "normal severe blast" equates to the generation of blast templates equal to those shown alongside the severe damage stat, inflicting moderate damage.

I would think the target model would take severe + moderate damage, as usual. Blasts would then generate off of the severe damage inflicting moderate damage (one step down) to all surrounding models. I don't believe the red joker would factor in beyond the extra damage to the original target. ... but I could be wrong.

Makes sense to me. That's how we play it. I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the RM, but that seems to be the status quo.

Does it? Page 25, under "Twisting Fate". It doesn't seem to make any specific mention of Strike actions. "Fate modifiers increase the number of cards flipped when resolving a game event ..." It can apply to anything, though most instances of and apply to a specific type of flip (attack, damage, Morale duels, flips involving a certain stat, etc). If you have a during Wp duels, I see no reason why that wouldn't apply to the opposed Wp > Wp "Gamble Your Life" duel. Does anyone else still call them positive and negative twists? Or is it just me?

You always round up according to page 5 of the RM, so half of 1 would be 0.5, rounded back up to 1. I think you did right.

Say I have a model that cannot be moved. Um ... Mortimer with his (0) Six Feet Under, for instance. Now say there's a model that can impose a Wp duel to force Mort to move. I don't have an example, but say it's a passive ability that doesn't require AP. Do we still flip the duel, even though the end result is already decided? Even if he fails the duel, Mort cannot be moved. Is this a case where the opponent enjoys me burning my Fate deck? "Nice, you flipped a 13!" Or is the duel ignored? Is there an official stance on this? In my group, we play it that the duel still occurs, but I'm just curious.