Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Yipikayey's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Hi, long time no see! Well i have been thinking about returning now with 3rd edition, but mostly i would like to ask where i can find information about rules, how to hire etc. About 2nd i ended up disliking how to build your crew you had to get boxes everywhere, and many times your master core box was useless. Has this changed ? How so ?
  2. Depression on Dora allows you, on turns when you get the cards for it, to do 2+ paralyzed reliabily. It's pretty amazing, specially if you have a widow weaver to lower that tresshold on how high your cards must be for you to be able to guarantee they are going through. Yes, you could use stones for that, but there is no game where i don't use depression on pandora atleast once, making up for its cost.
  3. Okey, i was going to read and answer you. I thought you were answering my post, and instead you just chose a silly analogy and ignored everything else which was the content on my post ? Way to go, i guess, nothing like cherrypicking. And about scientific fields. While you might think there should not be competition, it exists, and it is actually how we can accept a scientific consensus as factual (ie: climate change), because we know that thanks to that competition, if the researchs presented were skewed, biased, etc, we would have scientists eager to take on it. It does not deter research, but the contrary, so i don't know why when i am using it as an analogy to what netlisting does for the game, as pushing the boundaries ahead, you think the analogy is not right, and talk about science as a whole, when that's not what or why i brought it up.
  4. I don't have time for a full response, but about the analogy, Do you think there is not competition in research fields ? I will read the rest later, cheers.
  5. I completely disagree with the notion that it is uncompetitive. I understand where you are coming from, but i have not met a single player who is good at a game where tactics matter, which is not good at the strategy part aswell. Being able to copy lists actually is just a mechanism for new players, or people trying out new masters, to have some groundwork to begin with and be able to catch up with current players on a reasonable amount of time and games. It's like saying that the ability to use formulaes discovered by Einstein, makes you a worse physicist just because you didn't discover them yourself. And i believe that most of the decision making should have importance during the game, not before it. Otherwise we would be playing robots vs robots, where i build my robot, you build yours and let them smash each other. We both know that's not how malifaux works, so while i can understand the to games like for example wh40k, or fantasy, where the tactics are very limited and the game is mostly decided on deployment and army list creation, but here it actually pushes competition ahead as more people are able to catch up quickly, and malifaux learning curve is big enough as it is. And well, the game progress aswell, i am pretty sure that the level of play at release was much worse than it is now, and obviously, it will be even higher in the future. It reminds me of the infinity's players motto "it's not your list, it's you". @SJW nails it, the reason why he feels (i think) that he has an advantadge when playing against netlisting, is because for the very reason i said before, the level of play increases as people discover new things, they become the standard, and people then learn to beat the new standard. Rinse and repeat.
  6. People will gravitate towards fixed lists no matter what you do. From a competition standpoint, it's the most rational thing to do. Either you flip coin to see if you can capitalize on metagaming and winning your opponent's on the selection crew, or you play something which is kind of like a take all comers. The first option seems awesome, but it's the second option the one you can really practice for.
  7. Or when you have a choice, always assume your opponent has the best cards and best brains. Kinda like if you were facing Donald Trump.
  8. Thanks That's me, I know no boundaries.
  9. Sry to interrupt, where can i check the nova results ?
  10. I would really like an outcast themed fate deck. Oh well, the new ones look gorgeous anyways
  11. I do this with every master i buy. It also helps to get the hang on cards before playing against someone, where you would feel more pressured to not waste time reading your cards properly. It is also very useful to learn how to use your pushes, activation order, how the combo work, etc, etc... @OP If i were you, i would listen to the scheme and stones podcast if you haven't, and play the exact same crew over and over and over and over. The biggest mistake i see people to do, is to wildly change their range of models often, so they never really get a grip on how they work. Lilith can do that because the list is pretty flexible on itself. The list is: Lilith --- Beckon, Wings (Aether)* Nekima Doppleganger Johan --- Retribution eye Mr Graves Primordial magic Terror tot Mysterious effigy (terror tot)** *Assassination is on schemes, or if you want to keep lilith safe ** You can favor the terror tot for a second scheme runner if you want to or you don't have the mysterious effigy. The effigy is good because it allows you to push away from charges with lilith and keep her safe overal.. It is also difficult to give specific advice, because we don't know what you do.
  12. I don't think anyone really disagrees that to measure the skill in a particular game where both players give their best, a 10 VP system is better than just a tertiary result such as W/D/L. I certainly agree in tournaments which are big, give seeds, and have enough rounds. But community events such as tournaments, specially small ones, you want as many people as possible to play the tournaments, and then you have to compromise between all the people around to have a healthy amount of players on them, and for everyone to have a positive experience. If you are brand new, and expect to place well in a tournament, of course your expectations are too high, but a more reasonable expectation is to atleast have fun and decent games. So if you want to for people who just want an excuse, to play 3 games in one day, and have fun with buddies, a system which rewards big victories will result in poor experiences for those players. And you not only need, but you also want those players to continue engaged within the community. But i don't think you are putting enough thought on how people feel about those games. I am a very competitive players, so for me it's not a problem, but for other person, can perfectly re-think why go to a tournament in the first place, since he doesn't enjoy the games he will have there, and just play with his closest pals only, and the end result long term is a fragmentation in the community, and complete insularity. Just because there were people who wanted the small tournaments to be the best representation on competition as possible. Obviously, this is all based on context. Some people might live in a city where there are like 4-5 FLGS which run tournaments often, where this won't be a big problem, and there are other people who play in zones where at best there are 20-30 players, and only 4-5 are competitive. It's politics like usual, you need to find a compromise for the good of the community, and there will always be people who will lose a little, and others will win some. Specially for a 3 round tournament, where VP's between players who didn't face each other, really won't tell you much about how they ranked. Your performance on a given tournament can't be measured with perfect accuracy to be compared to others, so there will be always little grievances on who placed 2nd, 3rd, 4th... etc. If 2 people won all their games that day, if both don't play each other in a final game, the result will not be exact anyways. Which is why, while people agree that VPs is a better system to measure, it is not certain or factual, and therefore can be scrapped if expectations of a good chunk of the people attending to the tournament is that they don't want games where they will completely crushed in a sacrifice for the VP Gods
  13. Simple questions, yet quite not, but i think it is easier and more useful to pin down where people doesn't play leveticus, rather than where he shines: - Which faction you deters you the most against Leveticus ? Does it stop from fielding him ? - Which strategies stops you from taking leveticus ? Why ? - And finally, which schemes do you find the harder to ? Will any of you stop you from taking leveticus ? If so, which one ?
  14. Yeah, i understand that bloating the card space when playing is not good either. The compromise is not easy to find. From a game balance perspective bloating seems better, from a gameplay standpoint, maybe it doesn't.
  15. If the upgrades didn't cost the opportunity to use a different upgrade, the system would be fine (not perfect). That way they would be pretty much errata's to the card.
  • Create New...

Important Information