Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


solkan last won the day on December 4

solkan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,323 Excellent Walrus


About solkan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/23/1973

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I can agree that it would be nice if Pride got the that went missing during beta.
  2. The terms Misaki gives Mei Feng are: Except for the part of making Mei Feng stay in Halifax and do her job, that's what Mei Feng claims to have wanted to accomplish: Send troops and supplies back home to help the war. So what Mei Feng is complaining about being worse than death is that she doesn't get to go, and instead has to keep working in Malifaux. The exchange, after Misaki has specified her concessions: If Mei Feng isn't around to run the Foundry, none of what they just agreed to is going to happen. On page 52, that's Mei Feng prepared to take everyone who will follow her back to Earth, no plans on coming back or leaving Foundry elements behind to send reinforcements. Realistically, what's Mei Feng going to accomplish by running back to Earthside with the Foundry forces she currently has? She'd be running around playing hero or trying to be a general. Staying in Malifaux, she's working to supply troops and supplies, which is more likely to help in the long term but denies her the chance to run off and become Heroic General Mei Feng. Would it have been great, positive, and life affirming if Misaki had said "It would help the Empress more if you stayed behind and sent periodic shipments of supplies, golems, and troops from here" and they negotiated this settlement without a fight scenes? It would have been completely out of character for both of them. They got into that situation because * Misaki was running the Ten Thunders into the ground by trying to be an enforcer instead of a leader * Mei Feng's response to that happening was to take all of her forces and try to go back to Earth. Great opportunity to go be a hero, right? But if the Arcanist story is any indication, when crime bosses fight, you've got to burn down at least one Guild factory to get to the grudging admiration and truce moment in the crime boss buddy movie script. And with everything else that was happening, all Mei Feng and Misaki had the budget for was sparring.
  3. It feels like you're complaining that Misaki is still consistent with what she was doing two books ago. 😕 Two books ago, the Ten Thunders was a protection racket and they were actively courting the Tyrant who keeps Lynch as a pet. And they had Mei Feng running around as enforcer for the racket. Two books ago, Misaki was an enforcer for the racket. She gave herself a promotion, and continued running the racket the way it had always been run. If you're willing to accept that Misaki was telling the truth when she says "I have no issue with extortion, but the abuse of refugees who put their dream in a new world...” Expecting the Ten Thunders to give up extortion would be like expecting the Arcanists to give up profiting from soul stone smuggling. What Misaki and Mei Feng's encounter boiled down to was: Mei Feng was all set to be the heroic martyr when she lost. Misaki told her that was bs, not happening. And pointed out that if she tried to be the honorable heroic martyr and commit suicide, that wouldn't accomplish anything. Misaki gave Mei Feng what Mei Feng wanted--sending troops and supplies to the fight back home--while at the same time telling her that she doesn't get to go off and be a hero and instead has to run the shop here. Mei Feng was trying to be the honor bound hero to her people. To the point that she would rather have gotten killed after losing than lose than fight, gain concessions and get told to keep doing her job. 🤔 No, I can't fault Misaki for the end of that exchange.
  4. Yeah, neither the ability Catalyst (present on five different models) or things like the Blood Poisoning action, The Feeding, are resolving the Poison Condition. So none of the mechanics specified in the Poison +X paragraph are relevant. They each do what they say they do, and that's it. The same goes for actions like Immolate; or things like Talos's "Flames of the Void" and "Soul Furnace" abilities (which just make the models 'suffer +1 damage from Burning' without caring whether or not they have Burning); or the Smolder trigger. They're all mechanics that cause damage specified as 'from Burning' or 'from Poison' to interact with the models that either reduce 'from Burning' or 'from Poison' damage or heal instead. Note that there's a bizarre difference in the game. An Action that says 'target suffers 1 damage from Poison', the model taking the action gets credit for the kill due to the Conditions paragraph five. There's no corresponding statement for Abilities that do the same.
  5. If Collodi uses Puppetmaster on a model and has that model Charge, 'it receives a to that Action's duel (if any)" doesn't carry over to the melee attack generated by the Charge. Fate modifiers on generated actions aren't contagious, and M3E doesn't do nested action resolution like M2E did, at least in part so that fate modifiers can't be contagious like that. He can use Puppetmaster to make the Coryphee attack directly with a and the Coryphee will have great triggers to use that with, but the Charge scenario doesn't work.
  6. The main benefit for Frenzied Charge is when you're charging something off on its own to finish it off, you're less likely to have to say "Damn, I killed it and now I've got to walk." Since you mentioned the Kentauroi, there is that Like the Wind trigger that you can use to leave engagement, and then charge right back in. You would need stuff like Mobile Warrior or Diving Charge (that say 'This model may declare the Charge Action while engaged') in combination with Frenzied Charge to be able to Charge, attack, and then Charge again while engaged.
  7. Concerning "don't really need", I present myself as evidence to the contrary. QED. 😤 Seriously, for me at least the issue was that the estimate I had was getting magnified by the perceived severity of the result. Sort of like if this was "Roll a D20 every time this action is taken. On a 1, kill this model." Although, admittedly, the other part of it is that I was looking for a toy sim problem to work on rather than a math problem. 🤷‍♀️
  8. Unlike the previous edition, there's documentation to indicate that Archie is NOT supposed to be a faction defining beater model. If the designers want to just give up and leave him that way, they should at least errata him to be Versatile. 👻 On the bright side, probably the only thing that people accomplish in the errata wish list threads is venting, and providing a bunch of noisy data about where the symptoms of the problems are (and occasionally pointing out the problems).
  9. In today's installment of 'Solkan learns Python', or 'Stats don't feel real until a computer has run trials for an hour' Theatre, I was getting bugged by what what Lucid Dreaming card removal distribution looked like. Out of ten million trials, using strictly "Remove the lowest non-joker card of the three from play", after 4 repetitions of Lucid Dreaming frequently are each category of card removed: Weak: 0: 16,004 1: 330,521 2: 2,036,216 3: 4,523,311 4: 3,093,948 Moderate: 0: 3,373,748 1: 4,488,775 2: 1,849,138 3: 275,947 4: 12,392 Severe: 0: 9,419,962 1: 573,236 2: 6,780 3: 22 4: * (No observations) On a clean deck, just performing Lucid Dreaming once, no hand given, what are the frequencies of card removal: 10,000,000 trials Removed a weak card: 7,591,412 times Removed a moderate card: 2,261,537 times Removed a severe card: 147,051 times So, there's the ball park of how unlikely it is to be forced into the situation of discarding a severe card when you don't want to: Less than the odds of rolling a fumble in D&D if you have a fresh deck, although about a 1/4 chance of discarding a moderate card. When I first heard about this action, I got it in my head that if you had a hand full of low cards, the results would feel bad. I reran the sim to leave out the four aces in the deck (it's the start of the turn, you draw four aces), and then what happens when you use Lucid Dreaming. The machine says you get this: Removed a weak card: 6,947,505 Removed a moderate: 2,867,300 Removed a severe: 185,195 out of 10,000,000 trials. When I first read about Lucid Dreaming, I thought it would do very bad things if the player had a hand of low cards. I think I really overestimated the effect of removing four cards from a deck of 54. 🤔
  10. The books don't appear to have been written with an order, or at least the order doesn't appear to matter. Mr. Z (no offense, just not using his title because it changes) is present in all three Guild stories. Because of that commonality, you can tell that they're roughly sequential. But in the Outcast book, the second and third stories are set to occur roughly at the same time (in the third story, there's a reference to the characters in the second story being off doing stuff). Both the 2nd Outcast story and the 2nd Neverborn story involve Character W. I don't see any obvious references between the two stories to indicate whether one occurs before or after the other. Ten Thunders story #3 involves the tavern M. The story is written to imply (but not explicitly state) that it happens after a big fight scene in the Ressurectionist book. It's given this treatment: and the story goes off on what it was doing.
  11. I found your Sir Arthur Mumbles in the podcast, though. The mention is the between story commercial in Tales of Malifaux, episode 22 (Jan 20, 2016) at about the 32 minute mark, describing finding a chamber filled with oversized tables and chairs and stone buildings and figures that you'd expect to be giant miniatures.
  12. Huh. Episode 20 is Twisting Fates with The Coming Storm and Revelations! Episode 21 is Twisting Fates with Bearing the Burden and the first of the Avatar stories! I didn't think Twisting Fates was searchable, so I was skimming over the pages and ran into this on page 23: Malifaux Exploration Society is the name for the organization given in McCabe's story. I'm not finding the name Sir Arthur Mumbles in the PDFs.
  13. This just really feels like the "All of my problems are nails, the only tools I need are hammers" analysis method.
  14. For Simultaneous Effects, it doesn't matter whether all of the effects were "generated" at the same time, it matters that they're all supposed to be resolved at the same time. That's why stuff like the End Phase just says "Resolve Effects: All effects that resolve during the End Phase resolve now. If there are multiple effects, follow the timing rules on page 34." as an oblique reference to Sequential Effects. In other words, when you get to Step 6, you use Simultaneous Effects to sort out all of the Step 6 effects.
  15. In 'Friendly, Enemy, and & Control', the rules say: For better or for worse, that's defining a standard that doesn't apply to the rest of the rules (such as the scheme, strategy, or standard action rules) because those aren't 'abilities, actions, or triggers on a model's stat card or attached upgrades'. If a free floating rule stated "Scheme Markers cannot be dropped within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker", it is more reasonable to parse it as relative to the scheme marker being dropped. Just like if a free floating rule stated "Models cannot be placed within 4" of another friendly model", it is more reasonable to parse that statement relative to the model being placed. Or Plant Explosive's rule: Because you're left to fall back to English language conventions. I will admit that this does mean that I am not sure how you would phrase the Interact action to work in an equivalent manner if it were printed on a model's card. The card version would probably have to say something like "Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with this model and not within 4" of another Scheme Marker friendly to the Dropped Marker" to make it explicit that the card convention is being violated.
  • Create New...

Important Information