Myyrä

1 minute ago, trikk said:

I do :(. They can't even be saved by an edition change

I do too. I was just being hyperbolic. It does sadden me that they have never been relevant though.

49 minutes ago, trikk said:

Can you see those pistolero tears?

No you can't, because no one owns pistoleros, because they have never been relevant.

You don't really need o computer simulation to reach the conclusion that having to remove a severe is very rare. The probability of having to remove a severe, is the same as drawing 3 severe cards or jokers from a deck = 14/54 * 13/53 * 12/52 ≈ 0.0147

Added more detailed schedule.

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

Hmm, maybe I should start defining all our houses as destructible! 😁

I suppose anything is destructible with enough dynamite.

1 hour ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Man, if Perdita answers SHENLONG of all things, that’d be a real trick!

I'm positively surprised whenever she manages to answer a wet paper bag.

Added strategies and schemes.

4 minutes ago, Hawkoon said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but looks to me like both options are the nightmare version.

I believe the normal sculpt has never existed in translucent red.

7 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Also, question on the 6" aura for A Por El: how does it interact with height? Do you just need LoS and the horizontal distance, or do you try to take a hypotenuse, or is it base-to-base only? I love the idea of Nino in a tower taking potshots at everything.

You use the 1-norm.

I'm not sure one round is better than another, and you could do this for a whole tournament if you wanted to. We have also ran full tournaments where schemes were only revealed at the start of the crew creation while deployment and strategies were available beforehand.

Actually, it does show up on the right bar, so this was useful.

50 minutes ago, Starrius said:

Why would you stick with raw when the wording of the card would overnight raw.

It specifically stats on the card "drop any markers removed by this action" if it was changing the markers this wording wouldnt work and youd remove the scheme markers and then not be able to drop anything?

I have to agree here. The wording on the action looks very much like it drops the same markers it removed. There are also other actions that actually drop enemy markers, so not all markers dropped by a model are automatically friendly.

27 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I will also be accepting CONSTRUCTIVE responses!

Okay then. You can do it very easily! I believe in you!

Not easily.

On 11/11/2019 at 12:39 AM, Ogid said:

How is effect defined?

It isn't.

I believe I have mentioned it "a few times" before.

There will be a Malifaux tournament in game store Poromagia at 8th of December. The preliminary schedule is from 10am to 7pm. The store is located near Pasila railway station in Helsinki at opastinsilta 8B.

The tournament will use gaining grounds rules (no variants). If you plan on using proxies or significant conversions, be sure to get the okay beforehand. I'm quite lenient when it comes to those, but it's better to confirm beforehand than be disappointed at the tournament. There will also likely be a best painted reward of some sort (in addition to other rewards), so you may take that info into account when preparing your crew.

Strategies and schemes

1st round
Standard Deployment
Plant Explosives
Harness the Ley Line, Dig Their Graves, Hold up Their Forces, Claim Jump, Vendetta

2nd round
Flank Deployment
Turf War
Harness the Ley Line, Search the Ruins, Take Prisoner, Power Ritual, Deliver a Message

3rd round
Wedge Deployment
Reckoning
Breakthrough, Dig Their Graves, Take Prisoner, Deliver a Message, Claim Jump

Schedule

10:00-12:30 Round 1
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-16:00 Round 2
16:15-18:45 Round 3

Due to us sharing the space with an AOS tournament, we can only accommodate a limited number of players. Only 10 people will be able to attend this time. List of attendees is found below. If you want to enroll, contact me directly either via PM here or some other way. Entry costs 10€ and is paid on site.

Enrollments 10/10
Aleksi
Joonas
Matias
Juho
Leo
Jussi
Markus
Stibe
Chisse
Jarkko

41 minutes ago, katadder said:

As said I am unbiased as I play multiple factions

That's hardly proof that you are unbiased, not saying you are, but that doesn't prove it.

41 minutes ago, katadder said:

Thing is they are all good players and matt for example had the guild right near the top for quite some time in 2e. So is it factions or players?

It's both and player skill isn't independent of their faction choice. List building is quite a big part of miniature wargames and good players often play with good lists. The power of the master or the faction isn't the only thing that dictates what the top players play, aesthetics and fluff also play a role, but it certainly has an effect on those choices. Furthermore, like you say yourself, guild was doing quite okay in the 2nd edition, so it's not like all the good players just hate the theme. You can't just say that a faction isn't doing well because top players aren't choosing it, when part of the reason they are not choosing it is that it isn't doing well.

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

I think Hoff is pretty versatile but he struggles vs wp heavy crews so maybe complement him with a crew that has decent willpower.

Armor also protects against most Wp based attacks, so what you actually have to worry about is conditions. Hoffmeister himself has condition removal, but you might also want to bring another model such as Guild Steward (or arcane effigy) against obviously condition heavy crews. Terrigying might be bit of a pain in the butt as well, but models with very high terrifying are kind of rare, and Hoffman's beaters don't have terrible Wp values and Wardens have ruthless.

2 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I have Wardens and a peacekeeper as well so I guess I have one model at stat 5 except Hoffman.  Riotbreakers are also wp 4 but I don't have them yet. I'm working on the stuff from my Ramos box but I haven't had much hobby time but many dumb projects I'm trying to finish. Joss will be a nice addition but the steam arachnids are also wp 4. 

Howard and Melissa also have WP 5.

3 minutes ago, Ogid said:

PD: The only possible conclusion is Zoraida and Stitched Together need to be nerfed ASAP

I would like to point out that Zoraida was already kind of nerfed before the UK nationals.

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

Hoffman has the same issue as McMourning, everything is wp 4.

No they are not, unless you decide to only play things found in his 2e crewbox.

17 minutes ago, Cronex13 said:

@Myyrä i havent bought the family stuff yet cuz I was always salty about a Perdita player who used to always kick my ass in M2E, but I've looked through em lately. What don't you like about em?

I don't like that there really isn't much to like. They are not the best at anything within the faction, or especially within the whole game. They are not even good when it comes to durability or mobility. Actually when it comes to durability, I can say without being hyperbolical that they are probably the worst keyword in the entire game. That is really problematic when you consider how strategies and schemes work in this new edition. It is practically impossible to score 2 points from any scheme unless you are able to keep your key models alive until the end of the game. Being really slow doesn't really help either.

Ranged combat is supposed to be family's defining characteristic, but as things stand, they are only the third best ranged keyword within the faction, and even that is mostly because Lady Justice usually has better things to do than use her surprisingly decent ranged attack. Now that I think about it, it's actually pretty impressive that Guards manage to be even worse.

Perdita used to be my favorite master in 2nd edition. I was doing so well with her that I actually stopped playing her, to make the games slightly less one sided. I would love to love the family keyword, but I just don't see much of anything that's good about them. Sure, there are couple of abilities that are quite good, but are they good enough to make the crew good at actually doing something? If someone can point out even one thing the crew is really good at, I would love to hear it.

3 hours ago, Angelshard said:

I think an important thing to remember is that GG1 is right around the corner. Wyrd has already said theat they're working on it. Given the massive differences between GG's before it will most likely cause a lot of changes to balance.

I would be very surprised if they went heavy on errata this early into new edition. We will likely see new schemes and strategies, but what kind of scheme or strategy would favor models that are not good at killing, surviving or moving?

3 hours ago, Angelshard said:

Another thing I've noticed is the lack of keyword strategy threads in guild, I find that these threads can take a crew from okay to good, as people start pooling all their tips and tricks and brainstorm (I'm trying to write one for family, even though my experience with the crew is a bit limited, just to get started).

I have a family strategy for you right here: Don't play family.

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

Could you provide instructions then on how to do the cut and paste on the e-rule book? When I do it, these are my results for the first section of the "simultaneous effects" section:

"Occasionallyaneffectwillgeneratemultipleeffectsthatoccuratthesametime§IfthishappenstheyareresolvedinthefollowingorderÄ"

I'm not familiar with cutting and pasting from the e-rule book, so each time I've quoted the rules it's by typing out the section. If you could give me a step by step method for an easier way, I'd be happy to do it that way.

You have to put some effort into it and split it up yourself. That's just the price you have to pay if you want to be understood.

Quote

Also, while you see it as a negative effect, I think it should be encouraged to have the rule book open while reading what people say, because we're talking about multiple pages worth of references and nuanced textual interpretation. It's a leisure game, so we're all doing this in our personal time, barring you're part of Wyrd, but that doesn't mean we should discuss rules without the rules in front of us. 

It's one thing to read the rules before you respond and another having to reference another text to understand what you are supposed to respond to.

Quote

I definitely don't think anything I've referenced in the rule book is "obscure." Including pages without content, the e-rule book is 54 pages, so not particularly long as a text in general. It has some lay out and organization issues, but considering it's written in plain English with elements of programmer/defined gaming terminology, that's expected.

Also I'm unsure how I'm reading it "creatively." I literally quoted the section and used an ellipses because again, I have to type out in full the quotes I want to use with my limited quoting capabilities. I then explained how I read it. I'd like to know more why you say that. 

I do find it funny though you reference me using "big" words, as though that should detract from the argument; I use these words because they're what come to mind and seem fitting given context, not because I like using big words--if I could I'd only write four letter words because it'd save me a lot of time and energy here and for daily life, but I can't get by like that T___T. Earlier you used the word "tautology," essentially a slightly higher than SAT level word. I accepted your statement because I know it to be true and you're right, no further justification was needed to show that particular statement was true. I later used a tautological statement, and it was argued my usage of such is a false dilemma argument.

I didn't say anything about creative quoting, and I don't object to using big words, just using them "creatively" i.e. wrong.

Quote

Regarding step 2, the way I read your post and @Adran's post was that the opening sentence and step 1 texts were ambiguous because of step 2's sentence. If I misinterpreted, I apologize and would like to see why you say it's ambiguous. At least to myself, the text seems to be all encompassing because of the general language, which makes sense for future proofing and as a method of writing that section. 

I did make the comment that not verbatim repeating step 1's text for step 2 in the context of the non-active player was likely the result of something other than a motivation to further define step 1. However, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, and I did explain why I think it provides some context in that section's interpretation. Also I think you have to have timing resolution for any two or more effects that share the same resolution window. If you don't, rules questions without solid answers are an inevitable result, never mind the choke on future possible models. I could not quickly think of an example that fit into the fairly subtle divide you and @Adran were pointing out, i.e. "[t]his can mean that the model has unresolved effects affecting it or it is generating unresolved effects. It seems like you read it as model generating the effects, but I actually believe it refers to effects affecting the model, because step 2 says (quoted section)."

Both of you read that section in the sense that the rule only applies to simultaneous effects affecting the model that is activated instead of resolving it as the active vs. non-active player choosing which effects to resolve first. I could not then, and right now cannot either, so apologies, think of a currently existing on point example where this distinction currently comes into play. Both of you, based on the Misaki example, are saying it applies to the Misaki example, but I think applying it in that way effectively renders step 2 for the non-active player's choice meaningless. The way you resolve the Misaki example, provided @Myyrä is reading it the exact same way as @Adran, which I am assuming you are, so apologies if I am incorrect in that, the active player actually effectively makes the non-active player's choice for them in deciding which simultaneous effect the resolve as opposed to,"the active player resolved his/her unbury first, the non-active player then resolves his/her unbury, but because you cannot unbury, the effect fails."

I'll put up an example I think that may be informative. I think it's a relatively easy ruling, but if anyone would like to say I'm wrong, please explain why with rules citations so we can continue the discussion.

Nothing Beast uses is action Accelerate Time and succeeds the simple duel to generate the pulse (see the model's card). Assume at least two enemy models are affected by the pulse. Which player determines the order in which the models take the simple duel? With how I read the rules, I would answer the Nothing Beast because the active player is resolve an effect of his/her model (see simultaneous effects section, cited in earlier post). To quickly change the example, if the Nothing Beast was obeyed by a model enemy to it into using Accelerate Time, then the player that controlled the model that took the Obey action would do so (see simultaneous rules section again).

Under @Myyrä and @Adrans' reading of the rules, though, regardless of which player caused the Nothing Beast to take the Accelerate Time action, the owner of the affected models would determine the order. I don't think that's how the interaction resolves because in the first iteration it renders step 1 inapplicable despite the active player being the player that generated the simultaneous effects with his/her own model. This seems more to break the game by rendering that step only applicable when such effects affect friendly models. If this was the intended resolution, the inclusion of the word "friendly" would resolve this particular discussion, but it isn't, so it is logical this step applies to friendly and enemy models. There is additionally the parenthetical at the end of step 1 providing support for this conclusion saying the active player resolves all of his/her effects before moving to the non-active player even if those effects affect models controlled by the non-active player.

As a question to @Myyrä and @Adran, what do you guys think of Malifaux having an open resolution window, similar to Magic's "stack," vs. having a one check resolution where an effect generally cannot apply contingent upon another effect going off in the same timing window, e.g. Rotten Belle's melee attack vs. Gwyneth Maddox's Luck Thief? I don't want to get into it if you guys believe the rules follow a one check resolution effect, but if you look at it from an open resolution window, I think getting into that may be informative as well. I would use this as a second example, but it may not be relevant if we all agree it's the latter and not the former. 

Your easy example requires me look up the rules of another model and read a wall of text. No thanks.

25 minutes ago, extremor said:

To be honest I just wanted to play alan and investigator since the investigator draws a card if acrivated by alans trigger... 

yes it may cost a ss but in return you get an additional solid 3/4/5 attack and an additional Card. 

I havent found a way to play Lucius efficiently and am desperatly looking for „the clue“..! 😅

How to build a stong Lucius crew in three easy steps:

1. Add Lucius and his totem.
2. Add a bunch of stompybots.
3. Replace Lucius and his totem with Hoffman and his totem.