solkan

That's odd that you'd reach that conclusion--that the rules don't specify a special or non-intuitive timing as the meaning for "at the start of the turn", so just pick some arbitrary time to do it--instead of taking the phrase at face value and resolving it at the start of the turn. Can you explain why you feel this way?

There is no aura in this effect: "Place a 50mm Hungry Land Marker within range and LoS, not touching a model or Marker. If there are more than two friendly Hungry Land Markers in play, remove one of them. Hungry Land Markers are Ht 0, Severe, Hazardous Terrain which deal 1/4/5 damage. Any model which ends a move or push within 3" of a Hungry Land Marker must pass a TN 14 Wk duel or suffer damage as if entering it. Remove the Hungry Land Marker if a Blast Marker is placed over it." Two very important points: 1. The damage specified in the red is not caused by an aura or a pulse. 'within 3" of ___' is not an aura. The is used to denote a specific game mechanic with specific interactions and requirements. 2. The damage specified in the red is not damage caused by Hazardous Terrain. Edit: On second thought, I retract that second bit.

The Yokai are useful for setting up Interact actions because they can get a free Flicker +1 when they're summoned (which they gain above and beyond the Flicker +1 that they have from Asami's summoning action), in addition to that free 3" placement when their Flicker reduces from +2 to +1. So if you want to threaten an Interact next turn, you can summon a Yokai without needing to use any markers.

Please explain which dialect of English you are using where "directly" doesn't mean "center to center" when moving one circle directly towards another.

The previous thread: And the thorough thread:

"Avenge Our Brethren" is 'After this model is killed or sacrificed, ..." "Eternal" on Eternal Fiend says (the relevant part): "When this model is killed (not sacrificed), it is not killed. Instead, bury this model. Remove all Conditions and heal all damage on this model." So, that means that Eternal applies first, and Eternal means that "Avenge Our Brethren" won't come into effect because Eternal means that the model wasn't killed.

The snag is Nekima's Birthright action. The subsection which is relevant: "After killing a friendly Leader during this model's Activation, the Leader does not count as killed for Encounter purposes. This model heals 4 damage. This model counts as the Crew's Leader for Encounter purposes for the remainder of the game." Nekima becomes the Leader as far as the Encounter is concerned. The friendly Leader model is dead, but schemes and strategies ignore the fact and treat Nekima as the Leader. So as far as I can tell, Nekima doesn't get treated as "the friendly Leader" by the Thousand Faces card.

As near as I can tell, two things are true: If a player has to draw a card and cannot, there are no reasonable ways for the game to continue. The various ways to fix a flip with fate modifiers in the absence of cards in the deck are each exploitable, or require ignoring significant game mechanics. All of the ways to create a situation where a player has to draw a card and cannot involve a crew crafted to produce that result. Fielding a dozen of the same minion is about as "accidental" as fielding Hamlin with a dozen rats. So there's no compelling reason to try to make a house rule to do anything reasonable in the situation that player has to draw a card and cannot; and the otherwise unreasonable becomes acceptable: If a player must draw a card and cannot, that player loses. And as far as I can tell, that's also completely in the spirit of gremlins killing themselves off for some sort of advantage.

Continue reading on the page you quoted from. "Once the players have drawn up to the maximum Hand Size and then drawn any additional cards, the players must discard cards down to the maximum Hand Size." followed by this one: "A player never ends this phase with more cards in hand than the maximum Hand Size, but effects that allow players to draw cards during the Activation Phase may exceed this limit."

You would need to ask Wyrd for permission in order to share the module. For Wyrd's permission form, see: http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/111399-the-use-of-wyrd-ip/ Failure to get permission to use the images would disappoint a lot of people when the update gets pulled.

On the question of access, you don't need to ask anyone for that. The Vassal program is also the thing that you use to edit Vassal modules. And in theory anyone can provide a vassal module to the vassal modules wiki. In other words, you've downloaded the vassal module, you can open it up and give editing it a try. I poked around in the module enough to figure out how to make new models, and then hit the point of "I'm adding a few dozen models all set to <Faction> Generic. Is that really accomplishing anything?" Biggest starting nudge I can offer is to attach an image showing where the model definitions are, and to give these instructions: 0. What you'll be doing is adding new entries under the Everything [Game Piece Palette] part of the tree. Selecting an existing model, and then copying it might be the easiest thing to do. 1. You change the image for the piece by selecting "Basic Piece" and then hitting the "Properties" button. 2. You change the text shown above the model by selecting "Text Label" and then hitting the "Properties" button. Quick unedited screen captures attached as visual nudges. Edit: Deleted attachments.

Yes. Because the instructions don't specify that the suit value is removed. 7-3=4.

From Measuring: "All measurements are made in inches, or fractions thereof. When measuring a distance between two objects on the table, measure from the closest point of one object’s base to the closest point on the other object’s base. All measurements between objects should be made using the shortest distances possible. In Malifaux, all measurements are done from a top-down perspective. Elevation is not factored into the measurement, although model and object height are used in other ways." The aura/pulse originates from the model, so you measure to/from the model's base.

As I understand it, the reason why the differential exists is because of the practical situation that scores don't vary widely enough without it. And multi-way ties don't look nice in the final results. Differential has the problem that it's essentially a function of the random variable 'How ineffective was your opponent?' which ends up being 'Who did you have for an opponent?' Strength of Schedule has the same problem of depending entirely on 'Who did you have for an opponent?' If you reward or penalize the player based on the results of the pairing system, you're rewarding or penalizing them for something they had no control over. At worst, you've just randomly rigged the results of the tournament instead of influencing player behavior. It would make a lot more sense, and remove the random pairing bias, if the tie breaker was replaced by a score for something indirectly associated with concentrating on the schemes. Something like "Number of scheme markers placed during the first five turns of the game (or while the other player still has models in play)", probably capped at some maximum value per turn. The choice of details pretty much comes down to how strong the desire to penalize one player for wiping out the other player's crew (or otherwise crushing them) is. If the player actually has the ability to determine their tie breaker score then it becomes effective to say "If you do one of these things which are negative to overall experience, this score is going to be terrible." That's what a secondary score needs to do in order to influence player behavior.

That's a really strange way to conflate things, especially since the mark of success for a game system at something like Adepticon is when the events get too big to be actual full Swiss pairs. I don't even want to think how many three round 40k events there are with more than eight players. But I'm just trying to avoid counting the number of problems with the idea that a single tournament is enough to determine who the best player in attendance was. When is "Player A and B play a single game against each other, and the sample size of one is enough to determine who the better player is" supposed to be convincing?

I don't know about anyone else, but I just glued the three non-raised feet to the curved part of the lip.

Corrected that for you.

To compare the current system and the proposed replacements: 1. Differential method: The two players each flip three coins, and compare the number of heads they each flipped. The person who flipped more coins wins the tie breaker. 2. Strength of Schedule: All of the players in the tournament flip three coins. In order to figure out who gets the bonus point, the tournament organizer enters all of the results into a spreadsheet and hits a button. From the perspective of the people playing the games at the time, both of those tie breakers are indistinguishable from random chance because they're determined almost entirely by random chance. Did you randomly get a good opponent? Then your differential is going to be lower. Did you randomly get a bad opponent, then your differential is going to be higher. Same deal with Strength of Schedule. Were you randomly assigned three above average opponents? Congratulations, your strength of schedule has been randomly determined to be better. Were your three opponents below average? I'm sorry, your strength of schedule has been randomly determined to be worse. Do either of those do anything to prevent a strong player from playing against weak players? No. Do they both produce opportunities for players to complain? Yes. So you're left with: Differential: Pros: The players can do the math The players have some say in the final results Cons: Effectively random if opponent selection is random, with better scores the worse the randomly selected opponent is. Strength of Schedule: Pros: If player pairing is not random, then it rewards players for playing against stronger opponents. Cons: If player pairing is random, becomes after the fact justification of results: "We randomly selected this person to play stronger people, so that person should win this tie." Effectively random if opponent selection is random, with worse scores the worse the randomly selected opponent is. More work for the tournament organizer Note that Gaining Grounds doesn't satisfy the requirements for Strength of Schedule's advantage over Differential, because player pairing is randomly determined in the first round, and the results of the random pairings determines later pairing. Flip a card: Pros: Honest and transparent about being a random tie breaker Doesn't allow for strong players to get a better score by playing weak players. Cons: 1. It's flipping a card to break the tie Objectively, the tie breaker should be replaced with a card flip because it would produce the same result with less work. Simply because it minimizes the amount of work required to produce the random tie breaker result, and it's not measurably worse than the other alternatives. It even produces the same opportunities for players to complain about good or bad luck in the tie breaker. Otherwise, as I can tell people would be better off proposing and developing a system to eliminate the random player pairings completely so the Strength of Schedule tie breaker would actually be an improvement.

Differential being bad doesn't make strength of schedule a better alternative. That's what it comes down to.

You're not addressing the complaint at all: That if you use random pairings, Strength of Schedule is just an elaborately determined random tie breaker. Here's what it breaks down to: * Strength of Schedule is more work to implement * Strength of Schedule is still determined by the initial random pairing * Strength of Schedule doesn't prevent "Strong Player smashes Weak Player" which leads to a situation where players get punished randomly and arbitrarily for their initial pairing. It'd be a loss less work to just flip cards as the tie breaker, and flipping cards would probably seem a lot more fair to everyone involved.

Bob wins all three of his games, so does Susan. Because you paired Bob against the new player, Bob loses. Which points out the biggest problem with strength of schedule: You now have a legitimate reason for a good player to complain (and possibly just walk out) if they discover that they've been paired with a weaker player. That's the amount of extra work that you're missing: In order to be fair, the initial pairings have to fair, too. And getting the initial pairings fair requires something other than just randomly assigning people against each other.

I object on two technical senses: 1. There's no such thing as "Summon sickness" in the rules. 2. If you're going to use "Summon Sickness" to describe something, it's the Slow gained by being summoned. The jet lag the model experiences upon arrival is the Slow condition. Otherwise, the Immunity rules are thorough enough that you don't even have to argue about the timing of attaching the upgrade.

What reason do you have to question the Goryo being on a 50mm base? Other 50mm base minions: Hunter Mounted Guard Mechanized Porkchop The Scorpius Large Arachnid A person on a horse is pretty much all it takes to rate a 50mm base, and that's hardly a "bulky monster" of a model. And the Hunter models look relatively tiny to other things on that list... If you're trying to ask what's special about the model compared to the artwork that it's getting a 50mm base, that's a really round about way of asking for a preview.

Please open your Rules Manual to page 39, and read the second paragraph of Placing Scheme Markers for the explicit rules answer to your question. I'd quote it, but my browser's quote function is malfunctioning. Edit: See also page 23, "Friendly and Enemy" for the rule stating that Obey does not change who the enemy model considers to be friends.

Let me put it bluntly. The "On the Move" upgrade: