Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

139 Has a Big Hat

1 Follower

About LeperColony

Recent Profile Visitors

1,404 profile views
  1. There's nothing "elitist" about a preference for finished games. It's not about "good players will finish" and "bad players won't." That's an absurd argument that nobody else has raised, and I can't help but believe it's linked to a specific negative experience you had, given the vehemence with which you've cast these broad and inaccurate assertions. Malifaux as a game is designed to play within a set number of turns. Just like Baseball is designed to work with 9 innings. If you change the game length, you have an impact on the game itself. For instance, you simply throw out that it's no big deal to finish a game in three turns, with zero appreciation for the fact that not every crew is equally well suited to play shorter games. In other words, a mentality that claims finishing games is irrelevant actually penalizes players who select slower crews/factions or crews that are expecting to gain control over the board situation and score points in later turns. The irony here is that newer players are the least likely to appreciate this dynamic. They may pick a crew because they think it's cool, but since it's "elitist" to finish games, they're going to be at a disadvantage when facing players who understand the need to play faster scoring crews to be ahead when time is called. Event timing rules are a concession to the reality that a full game of Malifaux is a struggle to resolve within the span of time allocated to multi-round tournaments. Even for experienced players. It has nothing to do with being "elitist" or punishing new players, but rather the timing rules (and the various proposed alterations) are an attempt to square the circle between practicality and accuracy. The ideal end-round timing rules are: 1) Fair, in that they treat players on a neutral basis 2) Agnostic with regard to crew size 3) Simple to understand and quick to administer 4) Accurately model what would likely have been the natural conclusion of the game 5) Encourage positive behaviors (for instance, they don't reward intentional slow-rolling) But there exists inherent tension between some of these factors, so any system that is proposed or used is going to represent concessions while trying to preserve as many of the priorities as possible.
  2. Yes, but it also penalizes people for playing against them, and that seems fundamentally unfair. If I'm a fast player with a small crew, but I happened to get matched up into more games that didn't finish and I lose an event because of that? Going to leave a bad taste in my mouth, tbh.
  3. But it would also disincentivize certain play styles like summoners or cheaper, more numerous model crews. Additionally, it would punish people for unfinished games even if they weren't the party at fault. I continue to find interest in chess-style timing with increments, and also some kind of crew per-model time scale, such that larger crews get more total time, but less time per model. If the round ends due to round time, then the current ending time rules apply. But if either player runs out of time, they lose regardless of the vp score. Though of course, this is far from perfect as well. Ultimately all these timing rules are a concession to the reality that for multi-round events, playing out 5 turns is frequently not feasible. So it becomes pick-your-poison.
  4. Looking at the following list: Zoraida (5 stones) Bad Juju w/ Twelve Cups of Coffee War Pig w/ Inferiority Complex Gracie Gautreax Bokor w/ Twelve Cups of Coffee Silurid The basic concept is to try and get the most out of the War Pig. Big Juju and Gracie are supposed to tank. Wavering on the 12 cups for the Bokor, but figured it would help him keep up and there may be instances where I'd rather use the bonus than give shielded. But the model count feels low, and if the War Pig gets focused it'll die and I'll probably be screwed. Any advice as to whether this works or how to improve it?
  5. How these "start of activation" abilities work has been argued on the rules forum, to no clear consensus. The two main positions that emerged are (in no particular order): 1) "Start of Activation" language in effects refers to the point in time in which the model is selected for activation. Any effects that are legal at that instant are resolved, but not effects that would emerge subsequent to, and because of, the resolution of the previous effects. The logic here is that subsequent effects are no longer occurring at the "start of activation." 2) "Start of Activation" language in effects refers to the timing step C1 (page 35 digital), which is essentially the period of time between selecting the model for activation and taking an action. Anything that can occur during that period, whether or not the effect would have been legal or existed at the actual start of the model's activation, happens. The logic here is that subphase C1 says "Resolve any effects that happen at the start of a model's Activation," and so "start of activation" doesn't refer to the model's actual start, but rather to this subphase. Or to put it another way, the model's "Start of Activation" is not one single point in time when it actually starts its activation, but is instead a period that can encompass a wider range of effects. The rules are ambiguous, so it is a matter of interpretation. I am in camp 1, because I think it's cleaner. But either interpretation can lead to questionable outcomes in specific cases. I've also proposed (a few times) that it's entirely possible Wyrd was not as rigorously consistent with this wording as we would have all wished, and that different effects were meant to operate differently, despite having the same timing. For instance: I will admit that Wyrd probably intends for Yan Lo to heal on the same turn he attached the upgrade, even though my reading of "start of activation" wording would not allow it. However, I do not believe that Wyrd intended Colette to unbury within Hamelin's aura and take damage. Or for two effects to ping off each other and be potentially infinitely repeatable. Ultimately, you're going to need to discuss it with your opponent. Unless and until Wyrd releases a definitive FAQ on how "start of activation" works, it's going to be a matter of interpretation.
  6. Unless Gaining Grounds changed it (which I couldn't find), that's not accurate. The rules state that markers are friendly to the "Crew controlling the model that dropped it." (digital, pg 28)
  7. Whether "start of activation" is an event (the conditions that exist at the actual beginning of the model's activation) or a period (everything that can happen before the model takes an action, including effects that would not have been legal at the actual beginning) is ambiguous. It's been argued here without a clear consensus, so ultimately you will need to discuss it with your opponent.
  8. For what it's worth, the M1E decks appear on ebay with reasonable regularity and can be cheap sometimes. They're pretty user friendly.
  9. Impossible and automatic actions are two of the best reasons to use opposed flips in TTB.
  10. Malifaux is on the schedule at Lost Planet Games in Torrance: Saturday, 1 pm Remember, the store has moved to a new location: 2711 Plaza Del Amo, Unit 511Torrance, California 90503 Anyone of any experience level is welcome! If you're an old pro, come by and play. If you're just through the breach, we can teach the game and provide all materials. Hope to see you there!
  11. Has anyone had any success with running Marlena OOK in a J.D. crew? Or did it not pan out like you thought?
  12. Just a celebratory post, as we had five games fire tonight! That's a record for us. Thanks for everyone who has come by. If you're in the south L.A. area and you've been on the fence, find the time to try a game!
  13. Malifaux is on the schedule twice this week at Lost Planet Games in Torrance: Tuesday, 6:30 pm Saturday, 1 pm Remember, the store has moved to a new location: 2711 Plaza Del Amo, Unit 511Torrance, California 90503 Anyone of any experience level is welcome! If you're an old pro, come by and play. If you're just through the breach, we can teach the game and provide all materials. Hope to see you there!
  14. I think because DMR says the killed model is "instead Replaced," then it is never actually killed. So Demise wouldn't happen and it wouldn't drop any markers. In my opinion, that's how it should be played. However, I could see the alternate argument that the Demise and the Recruit are simultaneous effects, so the controller would get to decide the order.
  15. On page 33, it says "if a model cannot resolve either option, the effect is ignored." Which I suppose means whatever effect caused the "this or that" actually does not impose the choice on the model.
  • Create New...

Important Information