Jump to content

Flib Jib

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Flib Jib

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

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Columbus, OH
  • Interests
    Malifaux, eSports, community building, woodworking, 3D modeling, Ludology, Ranking systems

Recent Profile Visitors

2,312 profile views

Flib Jib's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

115

Reputation

  1. Hello, I was thinking about interactions between terrain within terrain and how they would resolve. So if there was a large piece of terrain with the Dense and Severe trait and a Ht0 50mm terrain marker that was created by a model, (e.g. Underbrush, Pyre, Dust Cloud, Wind Wall, Hungering Land, etc…) does the terrain marker add or replace terrain traits in relation to the large terrain? (Effectively speaking. I know there are no rules about terrain adding traits to other terrain but I was wondering if this is cumulative or not.) Example: If a 30mm model was standing in the middle of a 50mm marker, would LoS be blocked because you'd be drawing through dense terrain? If the marker was Hazardous would a model resolve the effects of Dense/Severe/Hazardous, or just Hazardous? Also thinking of models that have things like Tangled Roots, can they no longer target models within the marker which is within the same Severe terrain? Also, what about Auras that have terrain traits? Can Jaakuna use her Drowning Aura and effectively become invisible if walking through dense terrain? If so, then can other models that ignore Hazardous terrain ignore her aura to then gain LoS?
  2. So just to come full circle. Things like Laugh Off don't work to prevent movement from an Obey. Because the movement isn't technically from the Obey, its often from the action controlled by the Obay correct?
  3. Side note, It's easy to to confuse Walk and Move as synonymous. I regularly hear things like, "Chompy moves 5 inches to here" when it should be "Chompy takes a Walk Action and moves to here" This is what makes solkan's bit super critical. It's also why the rules specifically have to call out, "Cannot be declared while engaged", because a charge uses a push for movement. You could charge out of melee if not explisitly dissalowed by the rules. (Some models break this) Another key note from the rulebook: So one of the ways Hasardous Terrain procs is from a move, doesn't matter if it is from a walk or push.
  4. I can't remember but I'm fairly certain 3E aviods aura's that are Hazzardous because it would then cause ambiguity correcy?
  5. This seems inconsistent, and I’m just wondering as to why. Would love expert insight.
  6. If this is true, is there any reason not to believe that it’s always the model with activation?
  7. For tracking which player (if any) is responsible for killing a model. Usually, it’s the model generating the effect. But sometimes it’s an intuitive and ambiguous. Things clicked when I thought of ‘symptom versus illness’; did the patient die of internal hemorrhaging or did they die from a stab wound? I like thinking of the ridiculous hyperbole, “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people” and in Malifaux it’s almost always the “gun”. Would love a fact check: It’s the root model generating the effect which caused damage that is attributed with the kill If the effect is an external/indirect effect like one that resolves during the end phase like burning then it is not attributed to any player Deaths from fall damage is attributed to the model that generated the move Damage from hazardous effects generated by a model are the exception, and cannot be attributed to any player. Root Model, indicating the first, e.g. Model A obeys model B to kill model C. Model A counts as having killed model C.
  8. Regrettably, it is difficult to have as productive a discussion that you might find satisfactory when points are made from ad ignoratiam. There is close to an infinite amount of hypotheticals that the rulebook does not tell you you can’t do. None of which should be considered evidence. But if your point is that there is ambiguity, I think solkan and Paddywhack have given some invaluable clarity.
  9. Theres also FAQ entries relating and support scheme markers being only friendly/enemy e.g. #25 ”Are Friendly and Enemy Scheme Markets considered different types of markers, such as for Research Mission? a) No. The type of Marker is Scheme, their alignment, (friendly/enemy) is the only difference.”
  10. Short Answer, No. Ignoring markers/terrain traits is actually irrelevant. The key interaction is between Drop and Move. When dropping a marker, it (or models ontop) are not considered to have moved. The Hazardous Trait comes into effect after a model moves through, into BC, Resolves an action in, or when the hazardous terrain/marker is moved into B2B (again, Dropped is not considered a move) So none of the requirements of the Hazardous Trait are met so the model would not suffer the effects regardless of whether the model might ignore traits. Something to note regarding criteria #3. If the active model dropping the marker with a Hazardous trait hypothetically isn’t immune, it would suffer the effects not because of a drop but because it would be resolving an action while in… Side note- this is why there’s been some errata where Place was changed to Drop because Place effects count as movement
  11. Would love a 'share' option somewhere in the completed tab or prompt when completed feature. There are so many fun things this would open up, here are just a couple I had. Community Boosting: This feature can be highly beneficial for local meta's or the Malifaux community as a whole. It allows players to share, discuss, analyze their achievements, strategies, or memorable moments with others. Sharing Options: Providing multiple sharing options such as email, social media posts, and possibly uploading to your personal linked account. Lots of potential. Unique IDs: The app already creates unique IDs for games and players. So shared content would be easily traceable and can be used for tournament organization (TO) purposes. Text-Based/Graphic: Having options would enable users to share game details, strategies, or results in a more comprehensive format. Graphics for social / text for tracking. Streamlining tournaments: Sharing games with TOs would make tournament organization more efficient as well as significantly reduce errors. Imagine down the road if there were a companion tournament app that plugged into game sharing options. Content Creation: Users can create content around shared games, such as tutorials or analysis videos. Analytics: Imagine some fun data that could be collected. e.g. when Dreamer is the opposed master, Assassinate is chosen %76.2 when in the scheme pool. Fun maths! There are so many fun possibilities if sharing games were a thing, Thoughts?
  12. What about a scenario where a Ht4 blocking terrain is between a Sz4 and Sz5 model so that no sight lines can be drawn between the two models without crossing the terrain. If the Sz4 model is farther than 3" then LoS can be made. but if the Sz4 model is within, (even partially) 3" of the Ht4 terrain, then LoS is blocked. correct?
  13. Super niche scenario but because shadows extend to a maximum of 3", any sz4 or greater models need to be within 3" of terrain equal to or greater than their size correct?
  14. So true, and when compared against all the other options out there Malifaux is far less '2 dimensional' or only killy than it's competition. Which is why I love it. I just sometimes wonder why Bad Things Happen.
  15. Love the math! regarding tournament play I wonder how much is factored when considering "Ideal/practical" What I mean is that Ideally you hope that tournaments go a certain amount of rounds for the Swiss system to dichotomize once and that tiebreakers result from outliers and not because the system wasn't completed. however, practically speaking anything more than 4 rounds (a 16-player system) is unrealistic. so tiebreakers are less breaking ties rather could be interpreted as the ranking mechanic. which is a WHOOOOLE other topic. Another side topic that might be fun and I've seen in the past before. Are crews "balanced" for a >5-turn game? I remember in 2E there were some Super OP crews that dominated the first two maybe three turns but then fizzled out. So there were meta's that took into account many tourny games not finishing the full 5 rounds. I don't think balancing decisions should take this into consideration but balance for how games are intended. still festinating to think about though.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information