Jump to content

solkan

Members
  • Content Count

    4,592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

solkan last won the day on December 4 2019

solkan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,383 Excellent Walrus

3 Followers

About solkan

  • Rank
    Tyrant
  • Birthday 02/23/1973

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. solkan

    Gorar Size 3?

    Just remember that the Grorar’s size stat changed from M2E to M3E. It’s still not as bad as the “scaling problems” Watcher model. 🥶
  2. How are you planning on climbing while you're ignoring Height? Please take a moment and notice that the rules are organized (mostly) as: * The big list of terrain traits. This specifies the terrain traits and what they do. * The callout box that specifies what happens when a model is unaffected by terrain. The end result is that you have a situation where if you have a rule that ignores this terrain trait, you ignore these specific parts of that terrain trait. The FAQ doesn't currently do a great job of explaining this situation, but that's what's supposed to be happening. In other words, if you have Incorporeal and you're about to deal with a Wall (Ht 2, Blocking, Climbable), the wall still exists. When you try to figure out how the Incorporeal model interacts with the Wall, you go through each of the terrain traits, seeing what the effects are and which of those effects are removed when you ignore it (the callout box after the terrain traits). The end result for Incorporeal vs. a wall is: * You can move through the Impassible terrain if you have enough movement to do so. * You can climb onto the wall like normal, because Climbable still functions even if you try to ignore it. * There are no rules which are negated by attempting to ignore Height or Climbable. Climbable has a statement reinforcing that position; Height doesn't. In other words, in order to use the Climbable trait you have to use the Height trait. That makes it sort of impossible to claim that Height has no effect. or perhaps and used the errata to put a reworded version of the last sentence in the "Unaffected by Terrain" callout. (Or put a line somewhere also stating that ignoring Height doesn't change anything...) In short, the Height terrain trait doesn't care whether you try to ignore it, it still does exactly what it says it does. Edit: The TLDR for the above is really "The FAQ saying 'ignores and is unaffected by' is essentially a typo. It really should just say 'is unaffected by'". That 'ignores and' isn't really needed by anything, and any of the rules that want to ignore specific traits like Hazardous (*cough* Incorporeal *cough*) call those traits out specifically. Hazardous, Climbable and Impassable should each have been added to the "Unaffected by Terrain" callout box, with pretty much obvious entries: * Hazardous: A model unaffected by Hazardous Terrain does not suffer any of the specified effects of that terrain. * Climbable: This trait cannot be ignored and models cannot be unaffected by it. * Height: This trait cannot be ignored, and models cannot be unaffected by it. * Impassible: The model can move through the terrain if it moves through the terrain completely and does not end in a position overlapping the terrain. But schedules, budgets, and multiple authors. 🤷‍♀️
  3. Doesn't Sonnia vs. Kaeris run into the "Both of these crews use Burning" issue? I'd think that would make an interesting game for an intermediate to advanced player, but that's adding a lot of complications to the situation where each player is trying to figure out what their crew's tricks are.
  4. If you try to 'take the same Action again' you have to go through the same steps, as specified in Resolving Actions: Note that it's not possible to claim that 'take' is a special verb when used with the word Action, since "Taking Actions" is Step 2 of a model's activation. In other words, "take the same Action again" means "Take an action, declaring this Action again."
  5. If you want Burning mostly for damage, that’s probably for Kaeris’s keyword. The damage for Burning In Revenant is probably mostly a side effect, using Burning for Pyres and to get bonuses is probably the focus here.
  6. Yeah, “What can your crew do?” questions are tricky because they assume a few things: 1. The player may not actually know. I’ve taken new crews to try out without figuring everything out before. 2. Not everyone likes thinking of things as “threat area”. 3. There’s a difference between “How far could I get with amazing luck” and “How far would be easy to get?” and both make assumptions. Making assumptions causes arguments. If you’re asking about etiquette, that’s probably the biggest point to make.
  7. In that situation, the next words uttered would be something like "This game is over if that's how you're going to try to play. You forgot to resolve one or more effects triggered by the first attack, so you committed an error by even declaring the second attack yet." Because what has actually happened is that the "fast player" is claiming that they can just skip steps like the "Step 6" step when they want to. And "Well you missed your chance I already flipped the card" is completely irrelevant. That's the same style of error that would be cited if the player forgot to resolve one of their own effects. It is more likely to cause offense, though. The issue here isn't so much a matter of proper or improper etiquette as it is one of the two players negotiating compatible signaling. If that can't be achieved, the players can't actually play together.
  8. The important thing, and it’s set up sort of backwards, is that Climbable works even if you’re trying to ignore terrain/terrain traits. And the FAQ is trying to say that “ignoring terrain” is essentially “ignoring the traits on terrain.” The terrain is still there, it still has elevation/height/whatever, so you will still fall off of it if you don’t climb down.
  9. You’re forgetting the last sentence of Incorporeal: A moving terrain marker is moved as if it were a model, so it will be able to move through the Incorporeal model. Disclaimer: I don’t think I’m missing an errata change on Incorporeal....
  10. This is an important distinction, especially if you've seen other war-games like Warmachine/Hordes where 'once per activation' means 'once during that unit/model's activation'. (Or like in various versions of 40k, where 'the assault phase' for rules means 'that player's assault phase' unless you want silly rules interactions...) In the Malifaux rules, sentences like this: use 'an Activation' to mean 'any model's Activation'. The distinction is pretty much that Malifaux, unlike the other games, doesn't require the reader to imply a distinction. One of the things which the FAQ entry is addressing is the interaction of things like Arcane Shield (During the Start Phase, this model gains Shielded +1) and Pandora's Misery (a 'Once per Activation' ability which in Pandora's case reacts to an enemy model gaining any Condition). 'Once per Activation' means that Pandora's Misery can be used once per each model's activation (enemy models, in Pandora's case). There are lots of other abilities that depend on this, like Primal Domain, Pretty Illusions, Wonder Weasel, etc.
  11. Yeah, the replace rules do create a sort of strange situation. If you have a stratagem that says something like "Pick such-and-such model" and you write down the Mounted Guardl, whatever that Mounted Guard turns into during the game is considered to be what you picked, regardless of whether what it turns into would have been a valid choice. So you can choose a enemy Mounted Guard (8SS) for Vendetta and a friendly 6SS model (Oxfordian Mage), the Oxfordian Mage can still score the first point of Vendetta against the Guard Patrol. Because you choice was valid originally, and the replace rules substituted different models and then have the "It's okay. These still count as good" clause. But for schemes that don't make fixed choices, an Oxfordian Mage wounding or killing a Guard Patrol is a 6SS model beating up a 4SS model, and they don't care that the 4SS model was originally an 8SS model. The scheme didn't ask you to make a choice, so the Replace rules don't have anything to keep the way it was.
  12. It isn't an inherent problem with this type of game. It's an inherent problem with one particular way of approaching this sort of game. Gaining Grounds is expected to change which models are most useful for strategies and schemes each year. During M2E, the release of new models changed which models were most useful for each particular scheme and strategy. "I bought this crew and I expect it to never change in usefulness" is foolish and unrealistic. And that's before getting into the pragmatic life lessons like "So you bought a model because it was unusually effective, and now it's fixed." Disclaimer: A person goes into a casino and gambles their life savings away, while surrounding them are people frittering away their spare change. Who are you going to blame?
  13. The direct rulebook references (I didn't want to review the previous threads this morning): and and there simply is no reference in the rulebook saying that an upgrade attached to a model changes the model's cost. Upgrades are paid for during hiring, but that that's all the rulebook says: During the hiring steps, there are discounts or taxes applied to some models. But they're only defined for the hiring steps. The question "Does a model's cost change during the game?" is a reasonable one to ask because it would be easy for that sort of rule to be hidden away somewhere, easy to overlook. But the game doesn't work that way.
  14. Can you explain why you think strategies and ability/action text would have a different convention for “another”?
  15. Of course, pragmatically the reason for the "after the action is resolved" timing phrase was to avoid issues caused by a model moving during someone else's action. From there, you'd imagine adding the words "or ability" would get added to cover the various effects that happen outside of an action (start/end of activation, start/end of turn, etc). From there, you'd expect that the hierarchy would be: - First, Did this happen during an action? Then use 'after the action is resolved'. - Otherwise, Did this happen during an ability's resolution? Then use 'after the ability is resolved'. But that's all cheating and asking "Why does this effect have a timing clause?"... 🤷‍♀️
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information