Jump to content


Vote Enabled
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by dancater

  1. The Wyrd store still has 2nd edition models https://giveusyourmoneypleasethankyou-wyrd.com/products/burt-jebsen?_pos=1&_sid=4f90cf6aa&_ss=r That could be relatively economical, alternatively you can get the 3e box including Gracie from the Wyrd store.
  2. Yeah. Wyrd will avoid at all costs bringing contemporary politics into the game, with damn good reason. Having said that no reason you can't paint a Gremlin up as Boris, he does look like one but taller, I think Bert Jebsen would paint up wonderfully.
  3. and 4. Certain Masters have additional special rules which expand their specific hiring pool in some way, these rules are detailed on the relevant Master's card (and they differ depending on whether you use a Master-title). This is rare but worth noting, Som'er does not have any of this type of rules.
  4. Yeah, Just as frustrating as hell, totally, 100% not you folks fault. Hell I just got my GenCon shipping notification, so hats off that I'll still be getting my plastic to play with thanks to your efforts. And as someone pointed out the truly exceptional (and free) Malifaux app totally fills the gap, just mark on the old card that it is errata'd and check the app, alternatively most folks have access to a colour printer, its not ideal but it fills the gap as well.
  5. I love that Wyrd makes print on demand errata cards available. I was under the impression the only location that supplied them was DriveThruRPG, so thought I'd pick some up. Which revealed a serious problem..... Got this notification from DriveThruRPG: Hello,Thank you for your recent order.Unfortunately we are currently unable to ship card orders to Australia. As such, we have refunded the cost of your order to your original method of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes.Thank you for your business and please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.Emalyn KnapikCustomer ServiceDriveThruRPG.com Very, very disappointing. I'm hoping Wyrd will investigate some sort of alternative measure to supply print on demand products to, well I'm guessing the Southern hemisphere, or at least Australia and New Zealand, we might not make up the largest community but we don't want to be abandoned. Anyone think of an alternative for myself and my fellow Australians?
  6. Also, this. I haven't gone to an event for the entirety of 3E, I first don't do this often anyway, its not my thing, second live in Sydney, Australia, where to be honest the community is small and what there is is insular, and third Covid, curse thee. But I am an experienced enough gamer to be able to theorise and while I'm certain the on the table experience will reveal some surprises and I'm very sure different meta's will have different experiences I do think the basic overview we've made is largely valid.
  7. Agreed on these two models. They will see a lot of playing time across both OG and title versions of their respective keywords, partly this is because they are good models that appear to fill a niche, but also partly because the poor options in both keywords model selection means its less a niche than a yawning gulf. The value of these models is directly related to the weaknesses which exist in the keywords, the frequency they are taken will reflect that. At least until an errata changes things in some way. Yes. It really is a designed summons. The fact that OG-Ironsides plays in a close-in brawlers bubble by design means that the Drudge just won't have the resilience to survive in the cauldron and they are insignificant so worthless as a scheme runner on the periphery. But it is not like Ironsides lacks for OK hires, she doesn't need the Drudge so it has a comfortable place as a summons. Both these models have excellent roles in crews which rely on conditions (Kaeris) or markers (Mei) in prolonging and protecting these game resources for their respective keywords. In a game where the number, ease and importance of marker/condition removal is only increasing these models are likely very high priority, if not auto includes, in their keywords (both OG and title) just to prevent this significant risk of counter-play. Both models are also OK in and of themselves as well. Dorian has the same problem, in a different way, as Smuggler Colette; what does he bring that the Performer keyword needs and does not have? The answer is basically not much. He is a mid-cost scheme and distraction enforcer model with a few tricks, nearly the entire Performer keyword can do these things and Dorian's tricks are not particularly remarkable. I can't see a reason not to take him, he is OK for cost, but I also can't see a reason to take him, he doesn't do anything the keyword really needs and doesn't already have options to do. As meh as the Smuggler Colette title was. He's pretty cheap, reasonably resilient and brings some ranged protection, small movement and a command option to the keyword. Can't see many games where he wouldn't be a little useful and at his cost can't see a reason why he's not an efficient crew selection. OK, the most puzzling model is last. The other Golem's are all a variety of beater-tank hybrid, big, tough and they hit hard - which you prefer depends on your preferences and the specific game. The Wind Golem is not that, it has OK damage but for cost it is not a beater, it has good potential survivability but this is a more tricky resilience, based not on wounds and armour but on mobility and ranged defences. What it brings is a large, hard hitting and tough highly mobile model, there are not many models with this damage track and endurance which is a fast, it is possibly one of the only models I could see troubling the First Mate for instance. But how many games does this keyword need a high cost scheme/anti-scheme model? I can see this as a solid selection, particularly against certain opposition who bring their own excellent scheme/anti-scheme models. But in the majority of the games I think grabbing a Wind Gamin gets you your scheme for less cost, and two Wind Gamin can do double the scheming, sure they may dies easier but they are likely fast and resilient enough still to get the essential job done either better (with multiple) or cheaper (with one).
  8. I agree that the title winners, taking winner as going from weak(er) to stronger kit/crew, are probably (1) Rasputina (her title appears to have legitimate power, unlike her OG version which struggles) (2) Marcus (I think the title is a shade stronger, certainly simpler and love the smash face) and (3) Mei (because I think this title is more reliable than the OG version). But in terms of actual master power (not playability of a single iteration or cool/fun factor), I think, accounting for the power of both the OG and title crews, then: Hoffman - OG Hoff mecha-armour bubble is very solid (literally) and the new version has the Pylon blocking ability and the nasty irreducible damage, meanwhile the crew is still tough but now less reliant on the bubble. Simply put you can win with either Hoffman and the OG/title choice only makes them stronger. Ironsides - her OG version is reliable and solid, her title is also pretty damn good. So while the pairing is not Hoffman powerful its certainly up there. Kaeris - so again OG Kaeris is a solid, resilient, mobile scheming crew that can kill, great. The title Kaeris is less about mobility but the uncapped damage spiking frankly verges on broken. The reason she's here is because OG Kaeris has better in faction options for a lot of wqhat she does best and title Kaeris, while hideously lethal, is a obvious and thus inflexible move, and this is the heart of her power, and theory-crafting does demonstrate it can probably be avoided (with varying difficulty). Sandeep - OG Sandeep is a summoner, they are always (even after nerf) strong and flexible. Title Sandeep is still solid, with some very powerful and flexible options. Basically gets here because both crews are very solid, with flexibility, so cool. Marcus - While I think the OG version is good it is a little Rube-Goldberg machine and sometimes pulls against itself with limited (obvious) and vulnerable killing pieces and limited (obvious) quite expensive schemers, also Marcus is kinda underwhelming in and of himself, still in the right hands its a solid crew. Title Marcus is a beast, literally, and basically directly addresses the underwhelming Marcus issue of the OG, but the upgrade mechanic is even more difficult to operate perfectly, in good hands this crew is going to crush noobs but against superior players it could go badly fast. Colette - So the OG Colette was amazing pre-nerf and is still likely one of the best scheming crews post-nerf, she is great, and while her crew is limited it is versatile and strong with the Enforcer and Henchmen options. However, title Colette, while she may have some very good options doesn't really bring anything much that screams different in terms of crew/scheme pool/opponent options, it remains to be seen exactly which Colette is stronger, but it appears likely that both versions will do well in similar type games and poorly in similar games. The viable crew across both Colette's remains basically identical. Mei - Basically OG Mei does a lot of what Hoffman does (mecha-armour) and some of what Colette/Kaeris does (super-mobile) and does both generally markedly worse, she is a jack-of-all-trades master but is really to weak to be a reliable single crew into any pool pick. OG-Mei herself is a superb scalpel to kill mid-range models but she cannot reliably take down solid beaters and masters and she over extends very easily, she simply will rarely turn a game, and her crew she may need to frequently. Now I think title Mei is better and more reliable, but she is also a bubble crew with a mobility schtick, so two of her primary abilities, Ride the Rails for superb weird vectors and Safety Inspection in the 8" bubble pull directly against each other. Played carefully either Mei is very good into most game situations, but I think they are both among the least forgiving crews in Arcanists, because this is across both OG and title the Foundry is near the bottom. Rasputina - So the biggest winner is still in the basement I think, simply because she is the biggest winner. OG Rasputina is a weak option, her crew is limited, she is awkward to play while her schtick is obvious and well known and so fairly easy to neutralise, the OG Raspy is (at the moment) a lead weight to her pairing, likely even with multiple Kaltgeist's in every crew she fields. Meanwhile title Rasputina appears to be very good, but, while a huge step forward over OG Raspy, not oppressively powerful, her summoning is great but limited to basically one great (Silent One) and one good (Hoarcat) model, with the others being summon traps in most cases, the Ice Pillars are as solid (in a different way) here as with OG Raspy (with the difference that OG brings little else) and still can cause as many issues for the Raspy crew as the opposition. Overall title Raspy is a great leap upwards but sadly from the depth of the pit that OG Raspy was in that means the pairing is basically a non-starter, I can't see OG being a realistic choice over title in many games at all, so title Raspy gets 8th slot in the pairing power rankings largely off her own efforts. So thoughts? I'm very confident I got positions 1 & 2 correct. But I'm less sure on the 3-7 block where I could happily switch certain pairings up or down one (or maybe even two) positions. Then we get to the cellar dwelling Frozen Heart, I think that is correct, but I am hoping that a errata will explode that soon, the large gap between OG and title Raspy really demonstrates the necessity. In every other crew I think the original and titles are reasonably close in power, in most cases playing differently rather than being a radical power shift. I will also say in fairness, the closeness of the Hoffman crews in power and how oppressively powerful title Hoffman looks to be means that is we see an Arcanist nerf I think it needs to be here, and I think the title is the problem and needs to be constrained. I also think that title Kaeris needs to be slightly or sideways nerfed, her Scorching Radiance needs to be limited (ideally damage capped) and maybe give her a tiny buff (say if you end the Burning condition on Kaeris then Scorching Radiance detonates on the model which ended the condition - a backdraft effect, or some other slight buff), but to be honest if you capped Scorching Radiance at dam 4-5 that would still leave it as fearful, but not make it ridiculous. Finally I renew my eternal refrain, buff the Moleman - end anti-Moleman discrimination.
  9. I see your point. You treat the first situation as a "the Colette" where there are two models intrinsically linked so what effects one also effects the other. So it is, in effect, not the only Colette, but a linked projection of an image of Colette. This is a two Colette's but only one model. Which frankly sucks. In contrast my framing treated the decoy/dove as a projection of Colette, not linked to Colette but a temporary (for the duration of the Routine Performance) a pseudo-Colette, where the pseudo-Colette is in all ways Colette, with the original as an anchor the image will return to. In this there is one effective Colette, where the other is a temporary anchor for the projection. I think mechanics wise this is cleaner. But I do see your point, but this severely weakens Routine Performance, it is a strong interpretation but it drives the discussion into either severely limiting and complicating Routine Performance where there is only one Colette in two places, subject to all sorts of combing and stacking game effects, and thus I agree it seems a poor option. But in contrast that leaves the alternative two Colette framing of the decoy/dove becomes "a Colette", separate and distinct from the true-Colette whose Routine Performance created it. This option seems exceptionally powerful, it would transfer across (nor carry back) no conditions, it would only be subject to limited table effects (notably you could toss a decoy into hazardous terrain and Routine Performance into that terrain with imperviousness) and it potentially allows you to summon three Doves/Colette turn, which seems not rules as intended. I mean I love Colette, I like the idea but it seems a bit broken. In this case an interesting question arises, if Colette Routine Performances to a Dove, the a(lternative) Colette is not the true-Colette what happens to the wounds and conditions on that Dove at the time the Routine Performance commences? Any wounds and conditions suffered during the Routine Performance cannot effect the distinct Colette, so do they effect the Dove (which unlike the Decoy can be effected)? What if the Dove is stunned or staggered is this the case for the a(lternaitve) Colette then? The fact that Colette can target Doves with Routine Performance is what really adds layers of complexity, it multiples the 'what if this or that' scenarios.
  10. The problem is exactly as Adran stated. The key difference being is I think the intention (no rational basis for thinking this, just opinion) is as the decoy/dove acts as the Colette. But I do disagree with some parts, No, the Colette only has one table location, she is not in two places at once, she is only engaged (or in AOE's or Auras) if the decoy/dove was in a position to be engaged. Whereas if it is a Colette then there is effectively two Colette's one is 'the Colette' and the other is the a(lternative) Colette produced by Routine Performance and either, both or neither Colette's may be subject to table AOE's and engagements. Otherwise I 100% agree. I've explained it as those game effects which attach to the model (damage, conditions) which will always follow to distinct individual model which has that damage or those conditions. Or The game effects which are based upon table location, such as AOE's, Auras, Pulses, Hazardous Terrain and other table location effects, these impact whichever models which are within the effect as it exists on the table, it can impact multiple models and models can move into and out of these effects, they do not follow the model. So for example if a piece of hazardous terrain which inflicted the Burning +1 condition but also provided concealment. Any model (initially with no conditions) which enters the terrain gets Burning +1, the condition attaches to the model, if it leaves the terrain it is still subject to the condition, but it is not the concealment. While in the terrain it has Burning +1 and concealment. If its activation ends outside the terrain and it does not re-enter later in the game it will not accrue any additional Burning (nor benefit from concealment), if it re-enters the terrain then it the terrain effects occur again. If the model chooses to stay in the terrain and ends its activation inside the hazardous then it has Burning +1 and concealment, next turn (assuming it has not been moved out of the terrain by other effects), it will start its turn in the hazardous gaining another Burning +1 (so now potentially will be Burning +2 if nothing reduced its Burning from the previous round) and it will be concealed, if it moves out of the terrain it loses concealment and retains its Burning (+1 or +2), if it stays in the terrain it retains concealment and next round when it activates the sequence starts again. The difference between game effects which attach to the model and in-game AOE/Auras which are based upon table location.
  11. This is 100% true if the decoy/dove is treated as the Colette model during Routine Performance. But if in contrast if the decoy/dove is treated as a model with Stats as though it were this model (but crucially it is not the model) then the new model gets a new once/...... suite. I agree that it should be interpreted as that a pseudo-Colette is performing the action and this pseudo-Colette is treated in every way as the model of Colette, thus the once/turn is locked if it has already been used. But I can see an argument for a differing interpretation, that it is a separate and distinct model. An argument that needs to be resolved. I agree. But the question is why does the damage revert to the dove, if it is treated as Colette (the pseudo-Colette) then does not the damage sustained (which is like conditions attached to the model) travel "back" with Colette? Again this is the question I am wrestling with above. With Routine Performance what and where is Colette and what and where is the decoy/dove, almost any interpretation can be made to present a rules in play dissonance.
  12. So need to say this to focus my thinking. The critical issues when Routine Performance is used are (in all cases Colette may be Cassandra during the Upstage>Routine Performance action): "Where" is Colette on the table in relation to AOE effects such as engagement ranges and hazardous terrain, is she in the position where she was when she commenced the Routine Performance OR is she in the position of the decoy/dove during the Routine Performance. "What" is the Colette model for game purposes which attach to a model (regardless of table location) such as damage and conditions. Does the decoy/dove assume the full characteristics of the Colette model (bringing the relevant conditions and damage with it) and thus be able to gain damage and conditions during Routine Performance OR is the decoy/dove always a distinct thing, separate from Colette but adopting "her" stat card, thus distinct from damage and conditions and where damage and conditions will not apply for the Routine Performance. This is further important for the Once per Turn rule on the trigger for Phantasmal Prism (only for Colette, Cassandra cannot do this action during Upstage) Close Up Magic, if it is the Colette model then the trigger is only ever available once, but if the decoy/dove is not the Colette model then by rule each different model can perform Once/Turn events (allowing the summons potentially to occur with each Routine Performance>Phantasmal Prism+Close Up Magic Trigger). "Where" is the decoy/dove in terms of table location (is it removed to a temporary 'null' space or does it remain on the table and subject to table effects - if it remains on table does it remain where it is [effects there apply] OR does it 'switch' temporarily to Colette's location [being effected by the table state in this new position])? "What" is the decoy/dove in terms of marker (decoy) or model (dove) in relation to Colette, does the decoy/dove temporarily co-exist with Colette (so two models simultaneously exist either switching or in the same location) OR instead does Colette replace the decoy/dove (into a null space) for the Routine Performance duration OR does the decoy/dove assume a wholly illusory Colette Stat Card, so the decoy/dove subsumes the Colette stats but remains either a marker (decoy) or a model (dove). Wounds and conditions will only attach to a recognised "what". For Routine Performance we need to answer where is Colette in terms of table state and location and what is Colette as a model, and we also need to establish the same where and what answers for the decoy/dove target of the Performance.
  13. Now this is a truly interesting conundrum. 🤫🤔🤨😪 This really does need an errata/FAQ. As you are correct, on reading the card the decoy marker- which critically in this case may be a Dove - is the "target" and the wording is" Target may take a General or Attack Action, as though it were this model (and using this model's Stat Card). Note this wording means that Colette's stat card for Colette and Cassandra's stat card when she uses Upstage as I read it. This means the target (Dove) does not vanish, the target may take, so it does not disappear, it may still be effected by AOE damage, including from 1" Black Blood. A Decoy marker is safe, it can't take damage, it has no health/wounds pool, while it is destructible this is not a damage mechanic. Which means a difficult situation emerges: If the Decoy/Dove is still has a distinct existence during Routine Performance, which the card wording indicates is true, then it should take damage. If the Decoy/Dove is not in existence it can't take any damage, if a Dove, but this needs to be clearly specified. If the pseudo-Colette 'appears' (as I have previously stated is the interpretation I consider strongest) then she should take damage, which means is [1] is also true then damage is applied twice. Seems wrong, reads right. If the action is that a true illusory Colette appears then it will not take damage, it is not actually there, the Decoy/Dove just 'gains' its stat card. I think intent would seem to push for either [1] & [4] to happen, but this has issues for does is illusory Colette impacted by AOE effects from her original (the actual Collette's) position. So if actual Colette is engaged she cannot use her Phantasmal Prism even if the Decoy/Dove is totally in the open and likewise an engaged Decoy/Dove could use the Phantasmal Prism as long as Colette was not engaged. Also the illusory Colette is not impacted by any Conditions gained as a 'result' of the action. It finally critically opens the whole Once/turn issue of the Close up Magic trigger, because the model performing the action is not, strictly Colette. Seems wrong. Alternatively is [2] & [3] are true then this means the more intuitive circumstance exists where the pseudo-Colette is impacted by the AOE table situation which would apply to the decoy/dove, but, you could not Focus the Dove as it is not 'there' to Focus, the focus action would simply impact pseudo-Colette. Although I guess you could move Colette and then if she replaces back does the decoy/dove replace where she is (after moving) of where it was (when it 'vanished' temporarily?). Neither of these is wholly satisfactory, although I think [2] & [3] likely represents the better rules as intended (but needing slight clarification) and [1] & [4] appears to better represent the strict card wording (but raises many more problems). The other alternative are even more troublesome [1] & [3] as stated represents double damage jeopardy, which does not seem the intent, although is a likely rare (and avoidable) trap if this is the interpretation. While if [2] & [4] are true the ability is potentially hugely more powerful, with no AOE's (although this may include positive ones) which impact the decoy/dove applying, no conditions or damage results impacting the action at all and (again) a question over once/turn actions (although arguably here it is true that once/turn is limited because while the Colette model isn't strictly performing the action neither is any other model). I really and truly cannot see any simple way out of this rules/language maze where some corner case issue does not arise. Certainly you could clarify it completely in an FAQ but with all the rules which can potentially crop up this may require pages of caveats. It does need an FAQ to broadly clarify, as soon as possible ideally. I will be house ruling (and clarifying before each game, advocating in support of) that my opponent and ! play the rules as [2] & [3], as this seems the least likely to be problematic and the most 'fair and balanced' compromise of rules as written and intended applying to corner cases. But yeah this seems to be a genuine rules interaction trap. But I am afraid my [2] & [3] compromise raises a whole host of other potential issues. Still the best solution I see until this is clarified is that you communicate clearly with your opponent how the rule should be played and hopefully the difficult interactions are so rare its never an issue anyway (hopefully). And again, good to work these issues out here and now, because I'd hate to ruin a game by arguing at the table, hopefully this means a little quick communication, clarification and agreement at the start (based on this topic) can prevent that. At least until we gat an FAQ and can then debate the issues the solution raises in their own right.
  14. So, I'm not competitive. In the OG-Masters my most favourite to least (based on a mix of fun, cool and powerful) was as follows (and this does impact my view on titles, the new titles each directly compare to the OG versions and the more I like the OG-Master the tougher time the title has to seize my attention); (1) Colette (2) Hoffman (3) Kaeris (4) Rasputina (5) Ironsides (6) Marcus (7) Sandeep & (8) Mei. Thus my Arcanist Burns summary, from most anticipated/favourite title, to my least interested/excited about: Great Mei, love this title, seems like it will be great fun (question open to how strong she plays, I also love Mah so this is an auto buy) Rasputina, ups her power, gives her more diverse play, excellent new minions (question about what they do for the old Frozen Heart models and OG-Raspy, which outside Silent One and Beast of December are largely disappointing, even with summoning, don't mind Euripides so auto buy) Ironsides, again loving this, I think this could be the best single master option in Arcanist, both versions are strong, they play differently, great (question on Drudge durability and power, not huge on Anya will likely get still) The OK Sandeep, don't mind this title, really intrigued by Four Winds Golem (biggest downside here is no Academic love and I don't like Shenlong, this is my first might buy) Marcus, I love brawl and bash Marcus, but still underwhelmed by his crew, specially Molemen (the lesser Beasts really need love, biggest hit is that I really dislike Lord Cooper, might buy) Kaeris, so she seems to be a beast, I'm actually a bit worried about the negative play of her potential massive alpha inferno, really need to see whether her power is locked up in this or if its a storm in a tea cup and she's good without just super combusting enemies (generally I like the Wildfire crew so even though I dislike Reva I have purchased this at GenCon, helps that I like Deacon and he is Arcanist) The disappointment (so unsurprising that my disappointments were my two favourite OG-Masters, high bar to meet) Hoffman, I actually like the idea but his Pylon mechanic is as troublesome as hell, it could lead to terrain-marker trap play which sucks, and equally with the Pylons being destroyed he is hugely handicapped, looks like a tentative on-table problem (I have purchased this at GenCon, really want to see if the title is as functionally troublesome as it has been theoretically, I love the Hoffman crew it is fun and independently powerful, don't mind the Von Schill crew, that also helped my decision) And here she is, sadly from first to worst - Colette, I just am so disappointed, the Performer crew was already a bit of a take these few all-stars and go, and Smuggler does nothing at all to change this, her card is troublesome, her play seems more or less the same as OG-Colette game state wise, I was simply hoping for something really mixing it up and I got what felt like a artificial sweetener version of sugary Colette goodness, Smuggler adds nothing I like (now I do like Dorian a lot and the Pandora title I love and Woe was already a crew I occasionally slummed into, so despite this its an auto buy box but for Pandora Tyrant-Torn - which feels wrong) Ironically two of my 100% favourite OG-Master and title-Master combinations I will be getting by default; I love Mah and Mecha-Mah and also Pandora and Tyrant-Torn and think these two represent the best of what Malifaux Burns can offer (I also love the Lucius title but loath Nexus so passing on this, loved the Ophelia and Perdita titles and like both masters OG, so picked this box up). Finally Raspy has convinced me to check out Euripides, I'd been on the fence with this crew but love Abominable and Old One Eye looks intriguing + the Kaltgeist is amazing (please Wyrd give OG-Raspy and her older crew models a little love, that could make Raspy compete with Ironsides as the best and most rounded single master original/title combo). So based on the above my Arcanist Master tier based on OG and title is best to worst: Rasputina/Abominable Ironsides/President Toni A knot here of several close calls, I'll loosely say [a] Mei/Foreman [b] Colette/Smuggler [c] Hoffman/Inventor then [d] Kaeris/Phoenix Then pulling up the rear as jointly a little mediocre on both OG and title, loosely, [a] Marcus/Alpha [b] Sandeep/Font of Magic So if the primary goal was to shake my Arcanist meta choices up, objective achieved.
  15. So the final tally was: Charles Hoffman the Inventor, paired with Outcasts (Von Schill) with the Metallurgist Augmented keyword Marcus the Alpha, paired with Explorers (Lord Cooper) with the Empyrean Eagle Chimera keyword Toni Ironsides Union President and the new Arcanist model the Drudge, paired with Explorers (Anya Lycarayen) Kaeris Reborn and the new Arcanist Enforcer Deacon Hillcrest, paired with Resurrectionists (Reva Cortinas) Mei Feng the Foreman, paired with Bayou (Mah Tucket) with the Rockhopper Foundry keyword Smuggler Colette, paired with Neverborn (Pandora) with Dorian Crowe Performer keyword Abominable Rasputina, paired with Neverborn (Euripides) and the Kaltgeist Frozen Heart keyword Sandeep Desai Font of Magic and the new Arcanist Enforcer the Four Winds Golem, paired with Ten Thunders (Shenlong) So we got paired with Explorers x2, Neverborn x2, Bayou x1, Outcasts x1, Resurrectionists x1 and Ten Thunders x1 We got 3 new Arcanist models; the Drudge a Minion (3), the Four Winds Golem an Enforcer and Deacon Hillcrest an Enforcer. The other 5 models are out of faction keyword.
  16. Concerning the wonderfully useful Malifaux App. So wondering when this will happen, and how it will be implemented. When do we see the (first) Malifaux Burns content? Will we see content as the models are released (so we get content with the models being available), hope not, or will Malifaux Burns content be released in a single big push (so everything in the book is available in the App), hoping so? How will the App deal with the titles, will it be twice as many masters under that tab or will each master now have a method to select and toggle between OG and title? Will the App actually catch fire? All important questions that need answering. I wants to play with my App lists until someone yells at me to get on with my mundane life.
  17. Thinking on this. I'll summarise what's below first; Buff Raspy-1 (suggestions below) Major Buff for Acolyte (suggestions below) Minor Buff for Ice Dancer Minor Buff for Ice Gamin Leave the Ice Golem alone (or give it a movement buff when near an Ice Pillar) Leave the Hoarcat alone Leave the Silent One alone (actually I'd make its Healing Energy once/turn for non-Frozen Heart, an tiny OOK debuff) Leave the Kaltgeist alone Give Snowstorm Shielded when it activates near a Ice Pillar So first their is a clear gap appearing in sentiment between the power and playability of Rasputina-1 (poor) and Rasputine-2 (much improved). So I think Raspy-1, who was already a Arcanist low tier, clearly does need a slight buff. I'd like even more Ice Pillar creation, maybe a trigger on her attack(s), and a across keyword ability to let her crew ignore Ice Pillars as blocking and cover terrain, and buff Shatter first make Frozen Heart immune to effect (or even heal 1), and then increase its range to 8" or 10", and have a trigger (I think ) on Shatter to allow her to place in base contact with the shattering Ice Pillar. This makes her more dangerous and more about the pillars than Raspy-2, it gives her some teleport manoeuvrability and it slightly buffs her crew mobility. Snow Storm might like a very small buff. Kaltgeist appear clearly solid. Ice Gamin and the Golem may need a slight buff, but only alight. They are already a weaker selection for Sandeep as well compared to the Metal Gamin/Golem - for +Def and face smashing, or the Fire Gamin/Golem - for +Conditions and face smashing. So the Ice Elementals could sustain a SLIGHT improvement in both Frozen Heart and Elementals. The biggest issue for the Ice Elementals is how much better the Kaltgeist is for its cost, the choice is not even debatable (especially over Gamin). The Gamin really does need a buff, not sure exactly what. The Silent One is actually borderline to good, it sees a lot of action at +1SS OOK, I'm not advocating a nerf, it's not really OP, but it is very, very good. The Ice Dancer is in the same place as the Ice Elementals for Colette crews I have never taken it, never seen someone deliver a powerful argument for taking it. The Ice Dancer, even more than the Elementals (which do see some play in both keywords) could use a solid buff, here I would suggest something on her card to further improve her, reducing her SS cost would work maybe for Raspy but less so for Colette where she'd simply displace the Showgirl totally (unless the Showgirl was buffed as well). But the Dancer needs a buff, not sure what exacly. I think the Hoarcats are borderline, they are OK, I don't think they are a great take in Marcus (either) or Raspy-1, but they do appear useful situational summons. So if, if you do buff them I'd look at something either very, very slight or more maybe buff them through something on Raspy-1 card. But honestly I'd leave them, let the meta's of titles shake out some more, its fair that certain models will see much more action with one or other master iteration. This brings us to the real troublesome model, the December Acolyte, clearly a poor choice in Raspy-1 and Raspy-2 based on community input. This model is, fortunately, entirely Frozen Heart so only impacts directly in this keyword, and the model is also clearly poorly regarded in both iterations of Rasputina, so improvement can happily stretch across OG and title. This I think could start with -1SS cost AND perhaps a slight buff (I'd like something which means they ignore Ice Pillars as cover) or alternatively a fairly major buff (say Shielded when activating near Ice Pillars, +built in to melee and ranged, +ignore Ice Pillars as cover). The Acolytes really do need a buff and I think it is pretty safe to do so.
  18. Yeah I partially disagree. I agree the marker does not "become" Colette. But 'as though it were this model' means you treat the marker as though it was Colette. It is not Colette, but it is treated as though it was Colette. For this reason Concentrate would work (although as you state a marker cannot have a condition, so as soon as the Routine Performance ends the condition slides off the decoy marker, it would have focus for the nebulous moment the marker is still treated as Colette, but that is pointless). And yes, the close up magic trigger was critical in starting this discussion. In this interpretation the dove/decoy is treated as though it were Colette, so if Colette has used the once per turn trigger then she could not use it again this turn, by extension something treated as though it was Colette could not utilise the trigger either. I have already stated, I think of the dove/decoy as an illusion of Colette, with all of the characteristics attached to the model itself. But critically not those effects which impact the real Colette based on her location on the table, the illusory Colette is in one location, the real Colette another and auras and AOEs impact each separately based on their respective locations.
  19. Yeah the Backup Assistant will not be long for the table once folks realise that (1) he's a card cycling machine (2) he can clear conditions in an emergency (3) he damages himself to power his card cycle (4) Df 4 Wp 4 and 5 Wds (5) you can replace him with a model in the crew you've already lost. He will have a huge target on him, he is as fragile as hell and to be honest if he does make it to round 3+ he's almost certainly going to be replaced (if only to get a significant model to scheme). At 4SS he is superb value if you can just get him to that 3rd round. In most games he'll make his value even if he dies by end turn 1 with a couple of extra cards drawn and one more on his inevitable demise. I can see a Bokor or other healer being camped near him, to see if they can stretch his lifespan out. His synergy with the Bokor is off the charts.
  20. Also a lot more marker interaction and destruction in the new titles, that may impact the play of Zipp-1
  21. Yep. All I'm advocating is that both players make sure, as the variety of common/special markers expands, that they clearly identify the unusual special markers so both players can clearly identify them. And perhaps putting together a list of models which generate special markers. So far Thoon (Frozen Trophy), Lucius-2 (Planning Ahead) and Rasputina-2 (Creeping Ice).
  22. So throwing out this as a warning and advice as Malifaux Burns hits the wild. For most it is plain and obvious, but if the years have taught me anything it is to be most wary of what seems obvious to you, as that is the thing you don't account for and it burns you. Several of the new titles have an ability to create a type of marker which is what I'll refer to as a "common" marker, one which they, their crew and other crews can create in multiplicity. But, the marker they create has unique special additional rules, while in all other ways is the same as the "common" marker. Everyone must make sure that these unique variant markers are clearly differentiated on the table, so all players know what are the "common" markers and what is the "special" variant. The masters or models which do this include (please others feel free to add more): Rasputina the Abominable throws out (potentially multiple) Creeping-Ice Pillars which also prevent movement effects and Bury to models in base contact with them. This is a trigger on her Northern Winds attack, in all other ways these markers are normal Ice Pillars. This ability is especially complicated as it is not time limited and you can multiple Ice and Creeping-Ice Pillars at the same time. Lucius, Dishonourable at the beginning of his turn uses Planning Ahead to throw out a single Scheme Marker which, for the remainder of the round (so this is strictly time limited), allows Elite and Mimic models within 2 of the marker to add one suit of their choice to declared Attack actions. I'm certain there are others, so if we get a list that will be really useful. The critical thing is that these are not a new special type of marker but a special rule variant. As long as this is known to both players and clearly differentiated on the table (so both players know what is the "common" and what instead is the "special") then we have no problems. So everyone playing titles which do this need a second distinct marker, and everyone playing against them needs to clarify what is going to be used. Let's avoid unnecessary table conflicts. And for this reason as a house rule I would play that if the dropped marker is not clearly differentiated then it has none of the special rules.
  23. The Kaltgeist does boost Raspy-1 but I agree she (and multiple models in her crew) need a slight, emphasis on slight, buff still and hopefully she will get it. The trick is what to buff, if you do buff the Dec Acolyte and Ice Dancer, well they are summons for the Abominable, that could get frosty. If you buff the Ice Gamin and Golem you may hit issues with the Sandeep's. If you do buff her and her crew you could over correct in combination. I'd like to see something but very small. The marker is Destructible and, in addition, multiple of the titles (or accompanying models) have marker removal, so holding a point indefinitely seems unlikely unless your opponent has fallen on their face, in which case it is simply icing on a likely smooth, untroubled victory. Nevertheless, yes I actually very much saw this first as a defend your own model ability, although thinking now about its offensive potential it could cause lethal pressure for models/crews that rely on bury to operate and survive (OG-Colette would loath this). Also this ability, and several others across the titles, create a awkward situation, the Ice Pillar dropped by Creeping Ice makes a marker like any other Pillar, but it also includes the additional special rule to prevent Bury, so, especially if you have multiple Creeping Ice Pillars out, you will need to differentiate between these Pillar markers and the more "mundane" Pillars. This will be critical, the confusion and conflict it could otherwise create would be significant. So time to have clearly distinct types of Ice Pillar marker. (Note one of the most important of these "distinct" markers is Lucius Dishonourable, he throws out [a fortunately special only for the single round] Scheme Marker, so whether you are playing with or against titled-Lucius make certain you have a unique single Scheme Marker to signify this special ability).
  24. I can't see doing it often, but I can see doing it. The Wind Golem is more durable, depending on the opponent if I need something to get into a hot spot, move some things and drop a scheme then where multiple Wind Gamin might be chopped to pieces the Wind Golem may just be your huckleberry. Also if the enemy has a really savage scheme runner that you need to neutralise the Wind Golem might be the way to go. But agreed, the Fire, Ice and Metal Gamin are all small versions of their Golem's and the Golem is basically a killer, turning 3 small killers into a single much bigger killer usually makes sense in Faux, three Gamin are less efficient at killing than a Golem in 90% of circumstances. But the Wind Elementals are mobile primary schemers and, particularly for the Golem, anti-schemers. In most circumstances three separate mobile scheme runners are much more flexible and efficient then a single scheming monster. Plain and simple, it's a nice option to have, but you'll very rarely use it.
  25. It will also massively impact the choice of crew. The potential for a heavy "your choice of condition" available with Elementals crew here is massive. Lot's of Ice Gamin and a Golem, suddenly your Academic can hurl out a 5/6/8 smash face to a slowed target, with several slow vectors to set it up. With Banasuva, some Fire Elementals and a few Academics you could throw out some nasty Burning. The Metal Elementals are a mix of some cool movement options, functional damage and defence with Shielded and Vent Steam options. The Wind Elementals can wreck a bubble crew or positional scheme game with enemy pushes. As noted, both the Wind and Metal Elementals also synergise really well with Kandara handing out Staggered. The biggest issue is that the Academics are not cheap, the Mages (healing helps everyone) are 6SS, the Guard (with the movement-push mantra the Wind Elementals become insane) 8SS and Kudra (she synergises especially well with the Metal Militia) is 9SS. Be curious to see if/when we see a Poison Golem what the poison schtick could be. But the little Poison Gamin is the least likely to be seen in this crew. We really need a Poison Golem. Also remembering you can rotate all the Gamin with the Warp Elements trigger of Deep's bonus action Moment of Reflection, so you can in emergencies switch in the Gamin which brings an Academic that critical action option (which is probably another reason it's limited to the Elemental Minions).
  • Create New...

Important Information