Jump to content

Jinn

Members
  • Content Count

    638
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jinn

  1. Thankfully the Forgotten Marshal can only summon things that are a lower cost than him. A tanky 7 cost (with a decent ranged attack) being able to just summon a strong 8SS model every turn you happen to have a 12+with a is way too swingy.
  2. The owner of the model unburies it in their deployment zone.
  3. Adding two Trained Ninja upgrades to a Last Blossom crew with three Torakage will make a gunline crew cry.
  4. https://www.wyrd-games.net/s/M3E-Season-1-FAQ.pdf It is in section 9: Neverborn "1. Nekima – Can Nekima Push and take a Action as a result of a friendly Nephilim model being killed within range of her Enraged By Insolence Action? a) No. “Another” always refers to “not the model from which this text is written” except in those instances where the model in which “Another” is written would not always be a legal subject of the sentence, such as “Another Scrap Marker”, or “Another enemy model”. In such cases, “Another” will never refer to the previous legal subject."
  5. Jinn

    Sell me Raspi

    In NB he can hire them with Inhuman Reflexes (Scamper + Butterfly Jump + Disguised is nasty) and he can hire a Grootslang which is more mobile than a Blessed. He is still regularly perceived as the worst master in NB or Arc because every crew has good models and decent tricks but they usually aren't as inefficient as Marcus is. A good crew's models start out great and their Master contributes more to achieving objectives than any other model because they don't have to waste AP bringing their crew up to par. Marcus isn't even close to the worst Master in the game, he is just below the curve, and more so than his competition in his factions (IMO). On topic, Raspy is pretty bad as well. I hope the alternate Master cards idea is implemented and she gets an actually blasty alternate playstyle with the "Frozen Trophy" trigger somewhere on her card (because she pillared Von Schill in the fluff).
  6. Jinn

    Sell me Raspi

    From what I've seen, Marcus tends to be rated as the worst Master in either Neverborn or Arcanists by players of those factions. In my opinion: 50%+ of Marcus's beasts are crap at baseline and then only get to be decent after he invests AP and stones (for Quick Reflexes) into buffing them all. There are a few beasts that are decent before upgrades and great after upgrades, but spending AP and cards to do that should be getting powerful results given that he is nothing to write home about as a model himself. Compare him to a summoner and he is spending all of those resources to bring in probably 15-20 stones of upgrades a game in a much less efficient way that doesn't bring the usual summoner attrition advantage. Most summoners can bring in 15-18SS of models across two turns easily, and they only have to spend 2 AP instead of 5+, and models are way better to bring in than upgrades because they get AP. I just don't think bringing in upgrades the way he does is efficient enough to make up for the fact that your Master is effectively a stat 6 2/3/5 beater that has to spend 80% of his AP on turns 1 and 2 buffing his models. This is a simplification of what he brings to the table, but this is why he falls short as a master in a lot of people's opinions.
  7. The whole point of the FAQ was that "Another" always refers to the model taking the action. If you take a Rules As Written approach (not saying you should, though I think this is why nerfs should generally be Errata instead of redefining what rules mean) this means that ricochet's only restriction on targeting is that it cannot select the model taking the action, which will only come up if the model is within 3" of the target. The target of the action with the ricochet trigger is both within 3" of itself, and also not the model taking the action, so it is a legal target for ricochet. I would agree that the common sense and intuitive English interpretation of the wording is that "another" refers to the target in this case, which is why the nerf to Nekima should have been an Errata to change the wording on her card rather than changing what "another" refers to in M3E.
  8. Edit to remove: Didn't see the second page, which answered my question.
  9. Who in their right mind is still hiring the Yasunori? On topic, I think Graves' closest comparison is to the Lone Swordsman, and in my opinion he is completely outclassed. Offensively, The Lone Swordsman has a Rg 1", 3/5/6 damage (with Adaptive) with the possibility of going up to 4/6/7 with a ram and the versatility of giving slow, attacking multiple models, or generating pass tokens. He can also get to attack and damage and generate stones using Last Breath. Graves' only real advantages in this department are a 2" engagement range and Rig the Deck +2; this leaves him as a significantly worse beater overall. Defensively, The Lone Swordsman has equal wounds, also has Hard to Kill, has higher willpower and has Armor +1 on top of that. Mr. Graves' only real edge defensively is Black Blood (and +1 Sz I guess). On top of all that, The Lone Swordsman has Creep Along, so he is often close to 50% faster than Graves. Graves only strict advantage is in moving other models with Lead the Way, which ought to be very useful in a Lynch crew. Unfortunately Lead the Way is rather clunky to use in my opinion. It not having a and it having a low stat make it inefficient from a resource perspective to begin with, but it being only once per turn, a 4" push, and Graves being a 40mm all make it both very hard to grab enemies to send them towards your auras, and also very annoying to move allies up because they will inevitably be directly in Graves' way after being moved up. I think Mr. Graves could really use a buff that makes him excel at a specific role; either make him much hardier and rework Keeping the Peace to make him a proper tank (6 of discard a card to target other models than Graves would be cool), or improve/change Lead the Way into something that can efficiently move allies and enemies where they need to go.
  10. The old Lynch poses weren't exactly dynamic either.
  11. I don't think Sensei Yu has ever been very good, and he wasn't run in the strongest tournament lists before the errata to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I didn't like Yu before the nerf, and now I can't see any good reason to take him. Sensei Yu and High River Monks would both need a sizable buff for me to be interested.
  12. Aren't most of the models you want to bring less than 9SS? Unless you're planning on hiring The Captain, Amina Naidu, and Langston. Ironsides can run plenty well without Langston and Amina, and The Captain is such a strong counter pick to shooting that he is probably worth the Public Enemies risk to bring against a shooty crew. Ironsides with 2 x Gunsmiths, Fitzsimmons, a Steam Arachnid Swarm, a few upgrades and/or a schemer or two should be fine into this strat. Langston isn't even a very good beater to begin with and Amina is hardly essential to the core of the crew, especially now that Obey is so much less overpowered.
  13. Pg. 12 of the core rulebook below the Trigger Timing section. "If a Trigger does not list a timing, it is treated as an After succeeding Trigger." Happy to help
  14. Triggers you can declare after failing will say after failing and things that can be done either after failing or succeeding will say after resolving (not 'When resolving' this also requires a success to go off). The default if a trigger just lists an effect is after succeeding. So all of Mei Feng's triggers require you to win the duel.
  15. I don't even consider taking Hoarcats (with Raspy or Marcus). The problem with these cheap chimera models is that unless they're good enough to hire on their own they're going to be a waste of both Marcus's AP and his very limited upgrades. I have two copies of feathered wings available, do I want a speedy, annoying to kill Cerberus, or a speedy, still pretty easy to kill Moleman? The opportunity cost of hiring a bad model in Chimera is just too high, especially when this crew needs every edge it can get. Mutations are always going to be better on already good models, so why bring garbage and then spend an already mediocre Master's resources on bringing them up to barely average? Other crews can hire better models and have full on Master shenanigans on top of that. A fully kitted out Moleman or Hoarcat probably still won't compete with a Necropunk, Crooligan, or a Tanuki for value, and none of those models cost Master AP or design space. I'd personally steer away from those cheaper beasts (unless you have a specific combo in mind) simply because your upgrades will generally provide more value per Master action if they go on models with more wounds/higher survivability.
  16. TT will trade you Yasunori for him
  17. The binary I perceived in the original scheme is whether or not a model has the highest cost (which seems to be one valid interpretation of the wording, which is a problem if it is unintended). In my adjustment of the scheme the binary becomes whether or not two enemy models have the two highest costs. In your hypothetical the binary answer would be 'no', as you only have one of the two highest costs, even though both of your models are in that bracket. Just to be clear, I don't think it is a valid interpretation to say that two 10SS models have the two highest Costs when there is an 11SS model and a 10SS model (these two models have one of the highest two costs, but in this case the scheme would be checking whether they have THE highest TWO costs, which they wouldn't). I think the original scheme isn't sufficiently clear; actually the fact that cost is capitalised even further indicates that it is a singular thing IMO. If I didn't suspect that the designers intent was for it to refer to the two highest cost models (which I only suspect because of how ridiculously difficult such a scheme would be) I think it would certainly read as checking whether or not two enemy models have the highest cost. 'The highest Cost' does not in any way say or imply to me that there should be two different soulstone costs that we can/should be looking at; on wording alone without context it strongly indicates the opposite. I'm just trying to say that the scheme ought to be more clear, because it is not necessary to leave it worded so ambiguously.
  18. I'd disagree here, as the enemy would only have one of the highest two costs, the '10SS' one. The highest two costs in this case are 11SS and 10SS, by having at least one 10SS model they get one of them. Edit: I suppose there would be the scenario where you and your opponent have an 11SS and a 10SS model, so both of you have two models that are at least tied for the two highest costs. That seems fine from a balance standpoint though.
  19. My problem with interpreting it that way is that "if there are two enemy models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest Cost" is very far from "the two enemy models with highest cost" or even "if the two highest cost models are enemy models". Having highest Cost reads to me as a binary state, you either have it or you don't. The wording of the scheme leaves it very open to the possibility of this requirement not being met (possibly only due to the possibility of you having higher cost models than your opponent) which makes it read very ambiguously IMO. Either way I think this scheme needs to be slightly reworded to make it clear exactly how it is supposed to work.
  20. "(or are tied for)" I read as referring to being tied with your models. Your hypothetical isn't really fair because the only possible answer to that is that two apples of different costs and you're asking for the two most expensive ones rather than those with the highest cost (which is singular). Closer would be 'Buy two apples that have the highest cost', I get two of the same apple at the same price. By the wording of the scheme it checks whether there are two enemy models in play that have the highest Cost. If I asked 'how many models in play have the highest Cost?' and you said 'two, this 11SS model and this 10SS model' I would be very confused. The scheme should have more clear wording if it is intended to be different costing models, maybe something like: Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemymodels in play that have (or are tied for) the highest twoCosts and both models are at half or less than theirmaximum Health, gain 1 VP. Leaders and modelswith Summon Upgrades are ignored for revealing thisScheme.End: At the end of the game, if there is no more thanone enemy model without a Summon Upgrade in playthat has Health equal to its maximum Health, gain 1VP.
  21. How can two models have the highest cost? The wording strongly indicates specifically THE highest Cost, singular, IMO. I hope yours is the intended wording however, as that would make the scheme at least semi-viable.
  22. It's not a big deal, but I still don't understand how you're supposed to viably complete this scheme. Isn't it just straight up impossible if your opponent doesn't hire two models with identical soulstone costs? This seems especially hard because higher cost models are more likely to be the only model of their cost in your crew. E.g. a crew would commonly have 1 x 11SS model, 1 x 10SS model, 1 x 8SS model, 2 x 6SS model, meaning you have to kill 29SS of models and then leave two models at less than half. Getting two models to half health and not finishing them is already quite the opportunity cost as we know from Assassinate and Vendetta. Am I missing something or is this supposed to be a once in a blue moon scheme for the occasion where your opponent brings 2 x 10SS models that you're okay leaving alive for a turn to score a vp?
  23. I'd agree that it's unneeded as it stands, but it opens up a huge amount of design space for future changes or new models. Hopefully the next Errata is a bit more proactive about buffing models.
  24. I don't see how discarding from deck is very useful (maybe if it spikes really high and they're halfway through it? Just as likely to spike low...) when compared to discarding a random card from hand. Being more likely to reveal a weak card does not seem worth it to me when compared to a random discard; I'd need to reveal all three as ~9-10+ cards for the discard to become worse than the draw for me IMO. The reason Lust's old action was weak is because the net change of your flips when you discard 6 cards from your deck is functionally nil on average. Being able to draw the weakest of those cards is a bonus when you factor in all the abilities like Flurry or Juggernaut (discounting Lust's Sin token mechanic as it works as well or better with her new action). The new version of Lust will be even better at utilising Sin tokens for damage given she can now walk + Lascivious Music + Destructive Performance. The only place she might be less effective is in a Crossroads 7 crew, but that's unlikely given how rarely she was hired in those and how much stronger she is now as a model, she is likely better in that crew as well.
  25. Can you explain this? That action seems significantly better for Qi and Gong now that it discards a random card.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information