Jump to content

chris_havoc

Members
  • Content Count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Flowery

About chris_havoc

  • Rank
    Enforcer
  • Birthday 10/25/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

876 profile views
  1. chris_havoc

    3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

    That is a cool idea! D&D sizes pretty much. This would make things simultaneously more intuitive and less complex in language to my mind. This happened in 2nd edition and it didn't require much relearning at all as the model count remains roughly the same. New players would be new to the system regardless. I am a casual gamer so I can say it doesn't apply in my case. I also think that, as @Metalhed, says it is a matter of precision. It is a useful tool for balance it doesn't diminish the necessity for a careful consideration of how the models' should work it just makes it easier to price them appropriately. My thinking exactly. It may not address a present issue but it may could prevent a future one. Although it doesn't feel like it is or will be the same issue for them was just curious if you thought it could be. Spirit isn't a general characteristic though like Undead so maybe that's where the issue lies. Or in the fact that any time a Summoned dies for Nico it gives him the opportunity to get it back.
  2. chris_havoc

    3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

    I like this idea. I was thinking of bringing it up but wanted to stay more general. Do you think the same is true for the Dreamer and his ability to Summon Enforcers and Henchmen? Or is it no longer an issue with the viability of different Upgrades? I do like the idea of a Zombie characteristic though. On characteristics, I would like it if Sybelle got that Belle characteristic. Should Kirai and Molly also be limited in their Summoning of Spirits for the same reason? There are a whole bunch now and they would probably shoot past THE summoner if you take Undead away from him. This is a good point. I'm sure Archie was designed with Decaying Aura in mind so he couldn't run away with it. I don't know her that well because if I see her I focus (probably to my detriment) on bringing her down quick. So what is the fix there? To design the Upgrades before tackling her?
  3. chris_havoc

    3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

    1. It's not THE fix it is a fix that renders a point system more forgiving to balancing issues and a greater number of models. So yeah that. It remedies the potential for balancing and bloat issues. I'm not saying that all they need to do in 3rd edition is find problem models and punch in times 2 and plus or minus one in their calculator. I am also not saying that the next edition should therefore be 200ss necessarily. What I am saying is that increasing point size makes current and future balancing more accurate, more forgiving, and easier to manage. I feel I've argued several times that it is something that takes into account future and not just current models. A model down the line that is worth 11ss but costs 10 or 12ss is, in terms of balance, better than one that's worth 5ss but costs 4 or 6ss. 2. I imagine, they require as much work as the other. I am not the game design manager at Wyrd but I imagine the current points cost would function as a reference for the costs of the models whether the game sizes are 50 or 100ss. So I would choose the template that made the balancing process more efficient. Staying at the current game size allows you to prescribe template that says this model should cost what it does now. That means any abilities must be fitted or shoe-horned as far as possible into that template. Consider of the role of the model is lost in fine-tuning it to fit into its expected point cost. Changing that cost requires a lot more testing and refining at 50ss than it does at 100ss because the incremental change is more significant at a lower game size. In other words, at 50ss Malifaux is probably the less-efficient model for future models upsetting balance which means more FAQ's and Errata down the line than the 100s template that can better account for future balancing issues due a greater threshold. So, an argument can be made for either in terms of practicality in terms of long- and short-term application. Upping the SS cost in the last Errata was a mostly effective way to address the problems some models had it would most likely be easier and more effective to implement such a fix at any stage of the design process (including post-release) if one had more room to adjust. 3. Perhaps, I misspoke when I used the word practically. I meant unfortunately. Inevitably. There will be models that are not quite balanced correctly. It will happen because the game is competitive in nature and so will have players exploit the issues in balance to win. Wyrd will also continue to release models because that is how running a company works. Sure they can rely on re-issues of old models when the new edition is released for a while but they will have to bring out new models eventually. A 100ss game size does not change the fact that players and new releases will create balance issues but it certainly lessens the impact. 4. Again, at no point was I advocating that they don't fine-tune or fix the models. That is expected of a new edition regardless of point size. My question to you is then: If fine-tuning models is expected of a new edition regardless, how does fine-tuning models at the current game size better account for future releases than a 100ss one?
  4. chris_havoc

    3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

    I totally understand where you are coming from and agree. I'm not aiming at realism here just what feels better for flow on the table. Sometimes making the rules feel more fluid requires extra or more precise wording. These are things that come from thinking that they were weird or didn't sit right in-game. I understand the reasoning but if you are playing a game where Chompy is as hard to hit as a Daydream it ruins the immersion and feels kinda dumb for both parties. To be fair, the wording in the manual is fairly hard to interpret. So maybe a fix to the wording there would allay my worries. Vantage points would be partially fixed by the height thing I think. I agree though, that is definitely an example of rules being more complicated than is necessary just use straight lines, same with flying but I think flying is a rule that is easily understood when playing but difficult to use the language of games to get across. Falling has never really seemed that much of an issue to me it seems fairly clear and fair. What is the issue there? Well Focus does generally eat up an AP (or significant ss investment) so it seems balanced to me. I would try it with just that change to negatives before adding anything else and test from there. They could even add one of those standard rules you talk about instead of having to constantly say that a model ignores engagement. Marksman: This model gains a + when shooting into engagements. Totally agree. The change from 1.5 to 2nd ed was SO good for those reasons. Do you mean profiles as in models? If so, I agree. It makes it easier for new players to join in. Just not excited to have to wait 3 years for the models I spent so much time and money on to be usable again because I assume 3rd ed will be so good I won't want to go back to 2nd.
  5. chris_havoc

    3rd Edition - My Thoughts and Prayers

    @solkan Thanks for your reply and I think I understand your worries and please correct me if i'm wrong. I'm not sure your concerns mean that we shouldn't adopt a 100ss system because I think I can address them convincingly enough that such a system should at least be considered if not taken all the way to play testing. I suppose my advocacy for 100ss is not to say that it will eradicate all problems, just that it seems a good fix without completely changing how the game works. I'm not arguing that there aren't other ways to fix the problems 100ss addresses but none that are apparent to me. Also, please bear in mind this is equivalent to wish-listing I'm just trying to wish-list in as systematic way as I can. Double Points Fails For Summoning Your first argument states that, adjusting for card values, one runs into the same problem as before. This argument is made, I believe, under the assumption that you would have to half the model values to make that work. I'm not sure you do. In fact there are a number of ways to overcome this issue. 1. The Summoning TN is currently generated artificially by adding 10 to the ss cost of a model. So all it requires is a reworking of how the TN is generated. There's no need to half the model's cost in ss down necessarily. 2. You could just as easily make the TN of the Summon equal to the cost of the model. This would save on wording for sure and for the most part would function the same. The only issue being that low cost models would perhaps be too easy to Summon. If that is an issue (I'm not sure it is how often are people Summoning 4/5ss models over 7-9ss models?) then it would be easy enough to say that the TN is equal to, for example, 12 OR the model's ss cost whichever is higher. EDIT: I actually thought about this more and it seems a pretty good solution. I'm not hat concerned if you Summon a Necropunk for 5 or 6 card suited if its wasting an AP and an SS. All it means is that Summoners wouldn't have to rely as strongly on card draw (an issue that has lead to weird/problematic exploitation) because at least they could get something out with low cards. They will always go for the bigger model whether the lower cost models are cheap or not. 3. You could also try the reverse of the current system and make the TN equal to model cost minus 5 and see how that works. 4. Another option would be to print Summonable models with TN values on their card that do not have to correspond directly to their cost. This is a logistical nightmare but thought I'd throw it out there because there are models that are worth more or less summoned than their cost would suggest. Double Points Doesn't Fix Quarter Point Models Your second argument, if I understand it correctly, is that even if you fix the problems for models that are worth, for example, 5.5ss by doubling them to 11ss, you still would run into models that are worth 11.5ss and this will make them seen more or as broken as models worth 5.5ss now. I don't think this argument stands. 1. Practically speaking, this problem will always be there. If there are models worth 11.5 at 100ss, there are models worth 23.5 at 200ss too. If your argument is that some models will still fall in the cracks then you are right but that that will happen at whatever point level. 2. Your point seems to be that because we cannot completely fix the problem its not worth trying to make it better. A model being costed at 6 instead of 6.25 IS better than one being costed at 6 instead of 6.5. I cannot say for certain that this will equate to it feeling better but no one can say either way until it is tested and the maths would incline us toward it lessening that feeling of disparity. 2. I think 100ss is reasonable - especially given your worry about Summoning and the issue of in-game soulstones - as quadrupling game sizes (not that you suggest this) makes the logistics of that kind of game mechanism far more difficult. 100ss I believe - as above - a Summoning mechanism could still work without too major an adjustment.
  6. Disclaimer: None of this is based on anything other than my own thoughts and short discussions with some friends. Any ideas that come out aren't meant to step on anyone else's toes. All my thoughts are not even really speculation as I am not saying that I think we will see these things or prescribing anything to the Wyrds that be. I am just putting some thoughts down so that they are out there to be heard, not to say they should be heard. So i have had a few thoughts on what I would like to see in third edition (which feels close but I have no insider knowledge to say for sure, just a feeling). These are mostly concerned with what I think could use a change and how to deal with the much larger number of models now in the game for balance purposes. Needing Change These are changes that I think need to be made to the rule set for fairness, clarity, or feel. Please bear in mind this is not an attack. I've only found four areas that I feel need change in a pretty big rule set. I think the system as a whole works great. Height LoS Issue: There is an issue for height that prevents models behind blocking terrain and other models. I think for the most part people play ignoring these rules because they are so unintuitive but that sort of necessitates the change. The issue is that the rules for seeing over things is different for models of differing height. For example, a Ht 1 model can always be seen behind Ht 1 cover by a Ht 2 model. Heght LoS Fix: A model hiding behind a wall its own Ht should only be visible if any part of its base is more than its Ht in inches away from the base of the obstacle. A model cannot see models its Ht or less behind an obstacle its Ht or taller too, obviously. Cover Ht Issue: The issue here is that a model, regardless of height, benefits from cover. This seems silly when a model is Ht 4 alike Lord Chompy Bits and is benefiting from a Ht 1 wall as much as Perdita is at Ht 2 provided they are within 1" and have the majority of their base covered. Cover Ht Fix: Cover should be downgraded ONCE (Hard to Soft, or Soft to none) if its Ht is double the obstacles. It should be downgraded TWICE (Hard to none, or Soft to none) if its Ht is triple or more than the obstacle's. Cover LoS Issue: A model must be within 1" of cover to gain its benefits. This seems silly when a model benefits from cover and if it is barely hidden in some cases while a model can be barely visible and still be shot with standard accuracy. Again, this is unintuitive. Cover LoS Fix: Cover should not only apply if a model is within 1" of terrain. It should only depend on the LoS rules in the book. Perhaps the downgrading could apply in this case too. If a model is not within 1" of terrain but is obstructed by Hard Cover, it would benefit from Soft Cover. If the same is true but behind Soft Cover, it gains no Cover benefit. Randomising Issue: Randomising is kind of a double issue. In the first case it is a bit confusing precisely when and how it applies. A model being engaged and in two inches seems simple but doesn't really come across cleanly in-game. Randomising Issue 2: Secondly, I think randomising is (don't laugh) too random. I think Attacks get the short end of the stick because of this rule and I think it is why there is such a proliferation of ranged attacks that do not have the gun symbol attached. Models with these attacks are effectively taken out of the game just by their target becoming engaged and so I think it hurts them too much. I know it seems thematic to have this in as one of your own models might be hurt but mechanically it hurts the game I think. Randomising Fix: I think the criteria for randomising should be changed to say that it applies if the model is engaged. Full stop. This may seem to make no sense in my complaint that randomising is too harsh but I would add that I think randomising should be removed in favour of applying negatives to the attack. Perhaps apply Cover rules because that's essentially what's at issue. Or apply the negatives incrementally where the shot gains a negative flip per engaging model (to the normal max of 3 net 's). This fix also means that fewer models (like snipers) would need special rules to ignore engagement. Randomising Fix 2: I think the criteria for randomising should still change but I'm not sure how. Perhaps engaging models must also be in LoS to trigger randomising. Though this time allow randomising flips to be cheated. I prefer the first case to this one but this one has the benefit of being doubly thematic and remedying the issue. Balancing Third Edition a.k.a. Wish Listing: Game Size: I reckon that the intended game size should double. I.e., I reckon it should be increased to 100ss. Model Costs: Doubling the game size would allow models to be more accurately costed. Similar to how 1st to 2nd ed increased the game size from 35 to 50. A Nurse for example is perhaps too little at 5ss and too much at 6ss in a 50ss game but that range increases to 10/11/12ss in a 100ss game. Soulstone Cache: The doubling of the game size poses some issues for the cache in-game. Should it also double or should it stay at 7. I believe it should increase to 14 (or thereabouts) but with an added change to Soulstone Use. Soulstone Use: I feel that the increase in cache would necessitate a change to how Soulstones are used. My suggestion in this case it to discover the most and least powerful aspects of Soulstone Use and essentially split them up into two. For example no one is often willing to spend a whole Soulstone for attack or defence but most are to spend it on a Suit. In other words, the would cost 1ss of a potential 14ss and gaining a Suit would require 2ss. This would obviously require play testing to figure out which aspects of Soulstones belong where in this cost scale a particular aspect fits but I think it is a decent fix for the issue. Rework Tara From the Ground Up: Please? She's so cool but so messy. Also, Abominations are too powerful for their Summon costs.
  7. chris_havoc

    Hard Cover, Movement Triggers, Timing, Damage Flip

    I was so excited that you found the answer I forgot the wording of the Trigger. Seems only in a case of wording like this would this take place? After failing before damaging seems kinda contradictory reading the sequence but Triggers specifically override other rules, right?
  8. chris_havoc

    Hard Cover, Movement Triggers, Timing, Damage Flip

    Sorry I can't read. Anyway, there is genuinely a dispute in my meta so thought bringing it up here might help. I think the issue raises a lot of weird interactions that are proof enough that one should go with RAI in this situation. That is the gist of what I am getting here.
  9. chris_havoc

    Hard Cover, Movement Triggers, Timing, Damage Flip

    The wording makes it clear that cover is passive or automatic considerations like determining LoS for an Aura. In other words, an Aura is triggered whenever LoS in relation to a target is an issue not only at the point of declaration. Thus LoS is passive and automatic. P.35: "It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action, the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target." "Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see the target. A model’s Line of Sight (LoS) represents what it can see on the table. A model either has LoS, or it does not (No LoS)" Targeting requires Line of Sight not the other way around. It's a condition for targeting and so a passive/general state between models. So, because cover is tied to LoS in its definition and not only when targeting it would seem that you don't check it once, it must be considered at every step in the sequence of the attack. Thus it's not so much an issue of cover but LoS and declaring targets. So the Stalker could "Butterfly Jump itself" in the RAW. My point is: 1. Because Triggers like Butterfly jump say this explicitly, it does not mean that this is not the case implicitly. Though it does highlight intention and so does the passage you point to on P.40 but it remains inexplicit. 2. Declaring a target does not make it explicit that the LoS to the target at this stage is the LoS that should be taken into consideration for the remainder of the Action. 3. LoS is not the cause of the issue, it should remain a passive/automatic thing otherwise Auras and Pulses cease to function among other things. 4. Declaration of a target SHOULD but DOESN'T say explicitly that the range and LoS drawn at this point in time are the only ones considered for the Attack Action sequence unless stated otherwise (a la Butterfly Jump). EDIT: Please prove me wrong. I am playing devil's advocate in this situation because I am worried it may be exploited and it's quite unintuitive.
  10. chris_havoc

    Hard Cover, Movement Triggers, Timing, Damage Flip

    I think the language is pretty clear (or unclear if this wasn't the intention). "when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn" There is no specified timing, so it seems that cover is not triggered upon targeting but throughout the action. So, at every stage of an Attack Action, if cover could be applied, it should be. So it seems like the Stalker would get cover after being shot.
  11. Hi all, Tried to find a thread addressing this directly but couldn't. The Scenario: A Witchling Stalker is targeted by a Attack, Triggers Drawn to Pain, and is pushed into Hard Cover. Timing wise, is the damage flip affected by the new LoS drawn? Rules: Cover: "A model will gain the benefits of cover from a () Attack when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1” of the target model. Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a to the Attack flip of any () Attack Actions Terrain with the hard cover trait will grant hard cover which imposes a to the Attack and damage flip of any () Attack Actions." Drawn to Pain: "After failing an opposed Df duel but before suffering damage, push this model 4” towards the Attacker." Interpretation: RAW: It seems relatively clear that the Push into cover will result in the Witchling Stalker benefiting from Hard Cover for the damage flip. At least as far as the rules listed above suggest. Is this correct? RAI: It seems strange that this would be the case as the Attack has already hit the model and cover seems like it should apply at the point of targeting. Now I am aware that RAW vs. RAI, the first should always be given precedence but I wonder if this is an oversight given how unintuitive it feels.
  12. chris_havoc

    Help with the Viks

    Can you not take out the Student with range to prevent the df boost? Vik of Ashes has a lower defense too maybe try the shooting against them? Not just to kill them but if you get cards down Vik of Blood doesn't have the positives. The problem isn't always the obvious threat either (as I'm sure you know) so I would suggest taking your master and shoving down the Viks' face. Mei Feng and Shenlong are both crazy quick and can accomplish this. Also, Misdirection really works if you go all in against hard hitters like the viks. Especially of you charge first because cards usually get used up. Go for the Vik of Ashes because if she gets moved out the way the Student has to be there and she's no longer in 2" of things for the Df/Ml boost even if the student isn't there. I must say Low River Shenlog is especially good with Misdirection with all that defensive. He can also potentially steal her fast but that is corner case at best. But a good old Recalled Training and you have fair odds odds of surviving (it improves your prevention flips too which I always forget), can heal the next turn, you're a single target so no whirlwind, and any additional hitting help runs the risk of Misdirection. Misaki is obviously first prize for this tactic with her auto-Decapitate if you burn your last stone for a Crow and she gains double positives that turn too (on basically all things) with Recalled Training. Shenlong is a close second for the models you have though. P.S. Being this aggressive is not always a tactic that works for everyone and is rather high risk so if things fluff there's trouble but with all the positives fluffing is minimized. Also you'd obviously build for the crew. I like taking Killjoy with Misaki so after she's finally put down out pops Killjoy. Not sure he'd necessarily work for Shenlong but the tactic is effective against a lot of crews. Not sure about Levi (I don't face him often) but Jack Daw does not like multiple positives on Attack and Damage in his face.
  13. chris_havoc

    Ohaguro Bettari - Free Charge Out-of-Activation

    Ah, see I searched "Once" not "One"
  14. Hey, So, there was a weird interaction in a game I had with Asami the other day against Lucius and The Tooth. The Tooth did her Challenge of Summer against Ohaguro and so at the end of the push she got to hit The Tooth. Fortunately, I had an 11 of 's in hand and hit Ohaguro's Ploughed Over Trigger so I pushed The Tooth away and charged The Claw, killing him dead with a Red Joker on several 's. The thing is, is it legal to Trigger Ploughed Over out of Ohaguro's Activation if the Trigger is only allowed to occur once per Activation? In other words, does the once per Activation restriction mean that Ohaguro can only perform the Trigger in her Activation (though it doesn't specify that it must be her Activation)? Or, does this mean that she can declare it during another model's Activation if an Ml Action is caused for whatever reason? So I was able to declare Ploughed Over against The Tooth but would not have been able to declare it against The Claw as it was still, technically, during The Tooth's Activation? Obviously, we played it the first way but only after rolling a dice to decide which way. Still, we'd like it resolved finally! Given this issue occurring with Yasunori and Bloodwretches to a degree, should this be FAQ'd for clarity? Thanks in advance! Chris.
  15. chris_havoc

    Schemes & Stones Master Spotlight Asami

    You re correct. Still auto-heal is pretty cool.
×