Jump to content

Thimblesage

Members
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

109 Has a Big Hat

3 Followers

About Thimblesage

Femme Fatale 2018
Total Testosterone 2018
  • Rank
    Enforcer
  • Birthday 06/08/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/Josh.m.Gill
  • Skype
    josh_m_gill

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Burbank, CA
  • Interests
    Malifaux, eSports, community building, woodworking, 3D modeling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,694 profile views
  1. Was wondering if Wyrd would consider creating a player page linked to our forum profiles where we can see and display our analytics? Since the app collects our game data it would be super slick to see a GUI of stats and figures. It would be so neat to see my total games played, faction and master breakdown, schemes and strategies breakdowns, number of unique opponents played, ext. Super hopeful that this might be implemented. What are your thoughts? are there any stats or other ideas that you would like to see if you had a game tab linked to your forum profile?
  2. The only thing I have found was from Adran "If you ignore a marker, you ignore the traits of that marker (otherwise it means nothing) so sight lines drawn through an underbush marker won't cause concealment to them."
  3. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... 😅 Reference Please? What's the argument? How is it technical? In which way was it applied? How was it silly? Reference please? What was the actual consensus?
  4. I had a rules question in a game last night regarding Underbrush markers and how certain traits where ignored and by which models. Underbrush Markers are 50mm Ht0, Concealing, Severe. Models with the Abundant Growth are unaffected by Underbrush Markers. From the rulebook: A model with the Abundant Growth ability was targeting an enemy model standing in an Underbrush Marker 6’ away. The question was does the attacking model receive a negative modifier in the duel? The attacking player said that since the Attacking model was unaffected by the Underbrush Marker, it ignores the traits of the Marker, (Severe and Concealing) Since the concealing trait is ignored the defending model does not gain concealment and does not impose a negative to the duel. The defending player argued that though the attacking model ignored the traits of the Underbrush Marker, the model standing in concealing terrain did not ignore the traits and therefore gained concealment. And since the attacking model ignores the terrain not the model, the attacking model would still have a negative modifier. Thoughts? Would love to hear the consensus of the forum.
  5. So if there's effectively no way to deny opponents through positioning tactics than it's pretty moot. If you wanted to 'lock down' a passage, ally, bridge, or some choke point and there's seemingly no mechanical way to do so than that feels moot. Would you mind giving me an example of how models that can create terrain or markers intended to 'control' areas of interest be at all effective in these tightrope walking scenarios? It seems to me that these models in essence want the ability to control the board through manipulating movement access and if they cannot than I am unsure of their fundamental purpose.
  6. Not arguing that fluff should be a basis of mechanics. I was making a point that it's satisfying when they seem to Complement each other.
  7. What about Hard to Kill interacting with shielded? Can the models controller choose not to burn the Shielded if HTK resolves first?
  8. Cheesy in both fluff and mechanic. Mechanically it would seem cheesy to render outmaneuvering and tactical positioning moot. If you take away players agency to counter their opponent through maneuvering and positioning it would greatly detract from the game IMHO. From a Fluff standpoint it doesn't "feel" right if a lumbering size:4 golem pirouetted atop a clothesline to avoid the opponent's counterplay. Obviously fluff has no grounds in a rules debate but it's nice when mechanics complement the fluff as much as possible leading to a good immersive game experience IMHO.
  9. I ask a similar question in that thread too. Tightrope Walking
  10. So how would you mitigate any cheesy tightrope walking shenanigans? I've had a couple games in 2e where enemy models climbed up fences and walked as normal across a razors edge then dropped which skirted the intended rules of the terrain and resulted in a poor play experience. the fence was climbable so no rules were broken but it didn't feel right. Making a blanket rule where railings, banisters, and other 'sliver' pieces of terrain are Impassable might help solve the issue but the problem with declaring all 'tops' of things like fences as impassable is that models would not be able to climb over fences at that point. So any ideas on how to solve tightrope walking?
  11. Absolutely, I completely agree and am so glad that we have very dynamic terrain and models and that its not an aesthetic similar to mancala. Not sure what your point is or if you answered the question. My apologies if I don't understand your answer but I would love clarity. I love referenced opinions but a reference without a statement feels a lot like "Try reading the rulebook, it has your answer" Which isn't as productive or helpful for me. Thanks for your understanding.
  12. So I was wondering what constitutes “any”? If it means in part or fraction of than that would mean if even a sliver of a base would cross over the edge of terrain than the model would be forced to fall. This would be weird mechanically because it would result in “free” movement shenanigans as well as making movement more restrictive and tactical because of the added difficulty. If any implies 'the entire' than that would mean players could move around objects only utilising slivers of terrain while most of their base were unsupported (if players wished to cheese). I’m thinking of a scenario where there’s a model on a bridge with the intent to block movement and an enemy model climes the 2mm rail on the side and tightrope-walks around the model intending to block. In my group we play more pragmatically with loose rules of “if it fits it sits” but I would like to hear your thoughts on the “actual” rules of the game for adjudication purposes. Thoughts?
  13. Let's start with this rule pg.14 DRB So I was wondering how this comes into effect with models on different elevation. If there’s a piece of terrain that has multiple levels can models ‘overlap’ If on different levels or is this above rule all-encompassing? On page 14 there's a Pandora/Rasputina example. Let’s say Pandora is actually standing base to base with the height 2” crate and Rasputina is Pushed 2” towards Pandora. Two inches would be enough to move Rasputina completely off the crate which would mean she would be directly above Pandora which is why the overlap rule exists. So in my opinion Rasputina's push would stop immediately before she would overlap Pandora’s base. Was Raspy’s push “interrupted? Invalid vs Interrupted Next Question, What if a model is standing on a bridge. The gap below is 2”. Does that mean that all non-incorporeal models cannot walk underneath the bridge because the bases would overlap? Would love to know your thoughts. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information