Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by solkan

  1. Yeah, there’s a few too many problems with this idea: A crew upgrade makes the assumption that all of the models in a keyword should get the same abilities. It’s trying to fix a problem by changing everything but the problem area.
  2. Yes, it does. There's no 'Bonus Actions generated by Actions don't count against the limit' clause in the rules, the exception is specific to bonus actions generated by triggers. That's part of the reason why Hannah Lovelace's Adaptive Tactics action (A Bonus Action which copies the tactical action of other models) saying "If the selected Action is a Bonus Action, it may be taken even if this model has taken a Bonus already this Activation." No, the copied bonus action gets tallied as her one bonus action per activation.
  3. I'm pretty sure this is about the fourth or fifth time that this question has come up, and the answer hasn't changed. The phrase is three words: non- (non-Bonus) Tactical Actions In order to negate the entire phrase, you'd have to use "not" or some other negative that isn't hyphenated. Because of the hyphen, the "non" is bound to .
  4. No, it doesn’t. ”treated as Activated” is relevant during the Activation phase when you’re going through and trying to select a model to activate. It doesn’t mean that you’re supposed to resolve the End Activation step or the other Activation steps for the model.
  5. The rule that vetoes this happening is the Model Limits rules: So, to be completely technical, when Zoraida has a Voodoo Doll in play, she can still discard a card at the end of her activation to summon a Voodoo Doll. But when she does that, nothing happens (the existing Voodoo Doll stays where it is, the new one doesn't enter play, and Wanga Mojo doesn't do anything because the new model isn't in play (it's a "this model" effect, not an "After a Voodoo Doll is summoned" effect)) after the card is discarded.
  6. Read the text in the rulebook again. It doesn’t say what you claim it does. It says that because the effect cannot be resolved, it cannot be chosen as an option. Which means that when you get to “gain Condition X” when a model already has Condition X, the result is “nothing happens”. Period. The fact that it’s stated as an example in one section of the rules doesn’t stop that example’s other points being relevant in other sections.
  7. Concerning the surveyor's healing-related effect: Arguing over pre-release materials outside of an area where pre-release answers can be given. Arguing about a rule that may or may not ever see play in the wording presented in the preview. Neither of that is productive. Concerning Misery, please note the wording of the "This or That" choice rules: cross references with the statement in Conditions: In other words, while a model already has non-numeric Condition X, it cannot gain non-numeric Condition X. The effect is not resolved if you try, so no effects trigger.
  8. I don't think that "enchanting + charm" to charge a soul stone from your own energy mechanic still exists in the game. Otherwise, I think the FAQ/edition change errata left the artificial soul stone device alone because it both says what it does, and it's a Step 10 benefit. I'd be inclined to even let the device still be able to store and accumulate five charges, unlike a real soul stone. I would, however, just ignore the bit about the scrip value of the artificial soul stone. It's an artificial device which stops working if the person who built it makes a second one. That's something that shouldn't have a sale value.
  9. If there's a group of people who want to develop a faster play format, that's great. That's how we got the M2E variant play formats. But that's what you want, get to work and do it. But as presented, this is just "A podcast presented an argument that I agree with that I'm not going to bother repeating, and I want other people to make those results happen." 🤷‍♀️
  10. Yeah, I think that's the important point to be aware of: Because of the standardization of wording, the same trigger wording is being used across models that can use soul stones and models that can't. And I think there were also a lot of cases where the developers went "In the future, there may be another effect that adds suits, so it's better to cap each trigger effect now." I mean, I don't think there's a way at the moment for any model with the Blaze Trigger to get three in a duel, or for a model with the Puncture trigger to get three at the moment. But both those triggers have their effects capped at 2.
  11. To start out, you'll be playing Shoebox games. If the players really get into it, they can get up to Chest or Wardrobe feasibly. In order to get up to Puppapocalpse, everyone needs their own copy of the game, and they'd really need to get into it. So Puppapocalypse probably isn't happening unless everyone's buying their own game box. Appendix: At Shoebox, Chest, and Wardrobe size, you can share the puppets from one box for three players. (You'll need an extra deck of cards for the third player.) There's the practical issue: There are 44 puppets in the game box: 3 masters (each player needs one) 3 in the box Lady Justice Pokey Viktoria Seamus sidekicks (limit one, but you don't need one) 5 in box Judge Misaki Rusty Alice Bete Noire Hooded Rider pawns (limit three of each) 12x3=36 Punk Zombie Convict Gunslinger Malifaux Cherub Nurse Rotten Belle Ronin Razorspine Rattler Silurid December Acolyte Deth Marshal Guild Austringer Executioners The game sizes are: Shoebox: 8 Chest: 12 Wardrobe: 16 Puppoapocalype: 32 Let's look at that game size in terms of "Maximum number of people per box": Puppopocalypse: Each player needs to buy a box Wardrobe: 3 players per box (you'll want to use drafting) Chest: 3 players per box Shoebox: 3 players per box (masters become the limiting factor) Note that the game does specify maps for two, three and four players, but you only get enough toys for at most three players in a box, and only two decks. It's a $75 game, how many copies of the game are you going to buy? Note that assembly of the figures is required, and painting is suggested. (I'd also suggest getting a paint marker or something to go over the tokens, but that's maybe extra...) You'll also want to buy a few boxes of the colored 30mm base packs so that the players can tell their puppets apart. So that's really: * $75 per game box * $5 to $10 per player for a set of colored bases * The two decks of cards in game box have the same backing, so you'll probably want to get card sleeves for the decks to avoid getting the cards mixed together. I don't know off hand how much MTG style sleeves for 52 cards costs. The fate decks from Wyrd's other games would work, but those go for $12 or $13 each. You can use a regular poker deck instead, but you'll probably end up using a marker on the deck because the Malifaux suits aren't the same as the regular poker suits and the two jokers have to be different colors.
  12. You can't say that you're just going to leave the book off! 😓 The book's why she's pointing down with the finger on that hand.
  13. It's been a few years since the Kickstarter, but I remember the assembly being pretty straight forward. I'm just going to recommend GMorts Chaotica's page on the model: http://gmortschaotica.blogspot.com/2014/08/unboxing-malifaux-hannah-friekorps.html Edit: According to him, you might need to watch out for the finger placement on the robot arm holding the book.
  14. I think it's better to assume that the "Mister Graves" who appears in Cold Hearted for all of two paragraphs wasn't a cameo because the story didn't even bother with a description.
  15. If you’ve got two minions, say Ice Gamin, in a list, and you need to nominate a model for a scheme, you don’t just write down “Ice Gamin” and use whichever one works. If you write down one of the Ice Gamin, you have specify a specific one of the two. When a model is summoned, it’s a new model so it can’t possibly be the one you wrote down. If you write down a model, and it gets replaced, you basically cross out the references to the old model and write the new model in. And at that point it’s remember to distinguish between someone’s casual description of what’s happening and the specific game terms the effect is using. Particularly because the distinction was created for M3E to address a bit of a messy bit in M2E. Compare the demise on a Coryphee and the demise on the Banjonista. The Coryphee’s demise says “replace”, so you put down a mannequin that you treat like it’s the same model as the Coryphee. The Banjonista says “summon”, so you put down a Bayou Gremlin and it’s treated as a completely unrelated new model. Some models with Replace effects have ways so that you can replace a few times and end up with the original model card you had before. For instance, Myranda or the Beast Within. If it’s a sequence of Replace effects, if you have a Myranda that becomes a beast and then that beast becomes Myranda, that Myranda is still the same Myranda that you started with.
  16. The pulse generated by Explosive Demise +3 is credited to the model with the ability (and thus the model with the upgrade). For Bombs In Yer Belly, the FAQ tries to address that: That’s making an exception for that Blast. Even through it’s an ability on the model with the upgrade, and even though it’s being placed as part of some other model’s Attack, that particular Blast marker (and the Damage for it) belongs to Sparks.
  17. For whatever reason, they decided to go with replacing the with (meaning that related effects that the model has no longer applies) rather than giving the model the ability to use actions while engaged. 🤷‍♀️ Per the FAQ: The model may as well have two copies of each of its actions, one with the icon in the range and the other with in the range.
  18. Keep in mind that if that "Impassible, Hazardous" marker got moved, the Hazardous Marker rules say that anyone who contacted it would trigger the hazardous effect. A model just moving into base contact with the hazardous terrain wouldn't trigger the effect until it managed to "move through it", which you're not allowed to do for Impassible. The rules don't appear to be symmetric about that at the moment.
  19. What is Deadzone supposed to be a "prime example" of? 🤨 Because my experience with Deadzone was this: Mantic produced an interesting board game/wargame hybrid thing with some really neat ideas for vertical terrain, let that run for a bit, and then tried to turn it into a feeder system into a larger scale wargame. I know a few people who bought into Deadzone the boxed set because the original hybrid approach was interesting, or bought the terrain for games like Infinity. My sample size is small, but no one locally was interested in converting to Deadzone 2.0 or the larger wargame.
  20. The section on Unsconsciousness Challenges on page 313 is probably a bit poorly organized, and thus a bit misleading. There are three sources of Unconscious tests: If a character receives damage and as a result they are at 0 or fewer wounds, they take an Unconscious test and suffer a Critical Effect. This is the test that living minions and peons automatically fail, and enforcers etc. automatically pass. If you have Hard to Kill and use it to ignore the Critical Effect, that also causes you to ignore the Unconscious test if you have one at the same time. Hard to Kill doesn't make you immune to Unconscious tests. Critical effects may specify an Unconscious test. All of the assorted stuff that says 'take an Unconscious test' like a spell, manifest power, the result of "I buy chloroform and knock the target out", etc. That's what the last paragraph in that section is trying to point out, when it calls things like Unsconsiousness tests specified on the critical effects chart. Honestly, it probably would have been simpler to just specify that the TN10 Unconscious test is basically rigged when dealing with Fatemaster characters at 3+Rank Value. 🤷‍♀️ (It'd still have to have the thing about ignoring the Unconscious test coincidental to an ignored critical effect, I suppose.) --- I think it's worth pointing out that the idea of "beating someone until they're unconscious" is a terrible idea due to the medical risks. But once a character is down to 0, it should be much easier to tie up or otherwise incapacitate them. Most of the time, the objective is "subdue and incapacitate the subject". When the characters get to the point of "Give up, or we're going to be forced to beat you to death" that's a good time for factors like Intimidation or Persuasion to kick in. Is there an effective way to "knock out" an incapacitated zombie or construct? That's probably a good applied knowledge skill test for a necromancer or engineer. 👿
  21. You do realize that each of those options have been applied to different crews summoning, right? Because if you look at the various summoning mechanics, they end up being limited by: Summoning that requires one or two suits. So de facto it costs a soul stone to perform the action. Summoned models that are insignificant. Example: The models that summon zombies. Summoned models are removed within a certain number of activations. Example: Asami and the Flicker mechanic. Summoning is limited to models of a certain SS cost. Summoning actions have a cap based on the TN calculation and the stat value. Dreamer and Asami it's TN 10+SS cost with a stat of 6. The max card is 13(14). Summoning has to respect the same rare limits that hiring does, a constraint that applies more severely to models that can only summon specific models. Most summoning actions are in base contact. Most summoning pools are much more restricted than M2E. and then there are the summoning upgrades which apply additional limits (so that there are only X summoned models allowed in play at one time, where X depends on summoner but is almost ways 2 if it's not the crew's leader) and may include negative effects applied to the summoned models. If you want to play a game of Malifaux without the summoning mechanic, see Henchman Hardcore. Edit: Seriously, the typical summoning leader master in M3E is going to be allowed to summon one model per turn, if everything works right. If the idea of summoning makes you nervous, look at Hamelin and the rats, and then look up what the limitations imposed by Rare limits does compared to M2E.
  22. The action specifies "resolve the following effects based on the suit of the flipped card, with any variable flips based on the value of the flipped card." So if you're going to claim that you don't take the cheated card because you didn't flip it, why would you take the cheated card's suit or value? The simpler interpretation seems to be that the distinction in the rules "Cheating Fate does not count as flipping a card" is there so that rules that say "When this model flips a card" don't recursively get triggered by cheating. For instance, during an opposed flip if the first player to cheat puts down the red joker, the second player doesn't lose their ability to cheat. There otherwise isn't a distinction. So, as far as I can see, the main accomplishment of cheating in a on that flip would be to prevent one of the other results. Because that result or the result surrounded by friends are somewhat inconvenient.
  23. Wyrd’s never really prioritized the release schedule to produce “must have” models (even when the models are new and were sort of obviously designed to fill a needed function) over things like Nightmare Edition Beach Vacation Rasputina. I don’t think they can start now.
  24. Yes. The totals are treated as equal (the defender's total is equal to whatever the attacker has), so without any other modifiers the damage flip will be at . Note that the attacking model gets to declare a trigger, if able and willing, but the defender skips that step. So some triggers (like Puncture), things like Focused, or various abilities could together still get the damage flip even or better with some effort.
  25. You're not making your argument more convincing by repetition. Especially when you end claiming that "center that Shockwave on the chosen model" is different from "Shockwave ... centered on the chosen model". On the opposite side of things, if you have access to the beta files, you should be able to see that the wording of that trigger dates back to a version of that action that did explicitly cause damage to the chosen model. (It directly damaged or killed the model, without using the shockwave rules.) That got changed and the trigger wording didn't change.
  • Create New...

Important Information