bsm86

23 hours ago, Adran said:

Doesn't work for the golem. You never activate the golem the turn it is replaced, it just continues the activation of the Gamin. So the Golem can't get rid of slow.

 

But the Gamin can

On 4/26/2019 at 6:20 PM, santaclaws01 said:

You realize the golem has the summon upgrade as well, right? An ice or fire golem getting hit the the exorcise trigger is a lot AP saved on taking care of it. Additionally Lantern of Souls basically turns off Banasuva's Mantra.

I do, but a Fire Golem is more than capable of killing a Charm Warder in one activation.

Then there's still the option of just letting Banasuva toss a Shasta Vidyia Guard in there and have it kill the Charm Warder.  

Sure, Charm Warders have the potential of screwing Sandeep hard but they are either an easy target to go after or they require a lot of setup to be somewhat safe - which is when Sandeep should see it coming and act accordingly.

2 minutes ago, Outplayed said:

3. Others say Charm Warders were a bad pick, I dont necessarily agree.  Their trigger to kill a model with a summoned upgrade is quite good.

Let's meet in the middle and say that it's not that bad. Still, a 7 SS model that needs to be in the line of fire in order to get the aura and the trigger to work with next to no real defensive ability aside from an opportunistic Leverage or Chi is too high of an investment to get rid of a Gamin. And it's somewhat luck related since you need this trigger.

If you really wanted to get rid of Gamins to prevent the Golem from appearing you should go after them with a real beater, HRM oder Mr. Long himself.

Charm Warders may have their use to sacrifice them to mill the opponent's deck in a critical situation but with all the card draw Sandeep can muster you only make it more likely he goes through his whole deck and reshuffles which brings you back to square one.

First and foremost: Kill Banasuva if you ever want to stand some sort of chance vs. Sandeep.

Charm Warders may sound nice against Summoners but why should Sandeep summon his Gamins within their aura? They are squishy and don't do very much damage. Since they want to be close they die quickly. Either replace them with High River Monks for that extra oomph or just use some of the great Versatile TT guys like the Swordsman or go out of keyword for Izamu.

Having stuff die with 3 LRM in your crew is also a sign of not playing to your crews strengths properly.

Never bothered. When you're actually close enough to make use of her aura you're probably about to lose her anyway.

I rather leave her a bit behind to use her Jynx. Talking about a Monk crew btw.

Hi folks,

Three times' the charm! This will be our first tournament in M3E. 

What?

50SS Single Faction

3 Rounds

Malifaux 3E Open Beta Rules (latest version as of 03/05/2019)

Unpainted miniatures allowed

When?

Sunday, 05/05/2019

from 9:30 to 20:00 (detailed schedule will be available in the link below)

Where?

Top Tables GmbH

Sternengasse 1b

50676 Cologne / Germany

How?

Registration now available at https://www.tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament.php?tid=24381 (Website in German).

Registration will only be complete after paying the tournament fee of 10€. This covers prizes as well as the location. Top Tables members pay half.

Hope to see you there!

Benjamin

20 hours ago, Erik1978 said:

[...] and only my Low River Monk had plenty. [...]

That's interesting. My LRM usually has the least amount of Chi since I tend to spend it all on his Trigger.

Where you mitigating all damage or did you just not have the chance to heal as much?

12 minutes ago, Gaston said:

TL;DR Spamming shockwaves is not fun.

I totally agree. And still aside from Pandora most models with shockwaves don't have such a restriction e.g. McMo crew or Von Schill crew.

33 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

On top of that I think having a both her attack actions restricted would be a bit too much. 

I still don't quite get why Fears Given Form is Once Per Activation... It is not even that good and the WOEs don't get much benefit from failed WP duels.

And just to be clear: I did not say Self Loathing should be Once Per Activation, only that it cannot target the same model twice.

46 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

 [...]and she can pretty much take a model out for a turn with slow, stunned and injured on the same model but isn't that ok for 3 master AP? (and conditions can be removed)

Before conditions were completely reworked there was quite a long thread suggesting it was not okay to completely shut down one model with conditions regardless of how many AP have been spent to do so. I believe it was about Injured and/or Distracted...

I for one would be pleased if there were a possibility for Dora to negate one model completely - similar to how she could (actually still can) in M2E. The backlash however would probably be severe and further changes would not be far.

Self Loathing currently is a bit clunky, sure. I don't like the idea of changing it to do fixed damage though. Instead of paying the cost and/or adhere to the restrictions in Italics why not just allow SL to only target a model once per activation. That would solve most of the problem cases in my view.

7 minutes ago, Gesuma said:

And then after that Zoraida provide a ton of need tricks for an already strong dreamer crew, but at least the dreamer crew is strong without that help.

Again, that's the issue here. Dreamer could play on his own, but when Zoraida makes him and his crew considerably better then it's a no-brainer to include her.

You could replace "Dreamer" with "Neverborn Master" and it would still apply.

17 minutes ago, Rift said:

Hmmm, i dont know so much. If the 1st master was strong enough on its own it wouldn't need the support from Zoraida as the second.

 

She helps my dreamer a lot with friendly model positioning which I think Dreamer really lacks on his own.

 

Imo...she brings unpredictable threat to whichever crew is supporting, and that is her strength.... and I really like it.

That's kind of the issue. Zoraida is a very strong choice on her own but her own Keyword has limited options.

Zoraida as a second Master complements all other NB Masters and improves them by a considerate margin. A margin which you probably (or surely) won't get when you hired other models.

The comparison to M2E Nekima is actually pretty good. There was almost no NB crew in M2E that was built without Nekima or at least the consideration to hire her. She brought so much to the table that her steep cost of 13 stones was almost always worth the investment - even without pass tokens and the risk of being outactivated.

@Angelshard is completely right: Zoraida on her own is fine enough so she does not need nerfs in order to be in line with other first master picks. She is however such a versatile second master pick that the only thing necessary to bring her in line would be to simply raise her cost (which obviously would not affect her as a first master).

I played a couple of games with a Monk crew recently and I'm satisfied with the current state of Shenlong. Monks are still squishy and require some protection but I always felt like I had options - which is what (to me) Malifaux is all about.

You could waltz right in with Shenlong and just murderize something or you could play the more control oriented style and push the enemy around.

Lifting the restriction on Concentrate for Monks is really a good thing and together with Yu's Shouting Orders and the Students you can still get a decent amount of movement in Turn 1.

LRM might be a bit too strong though; playing two of those results in an almost unkillable Shenlong.

5 minutes ago, Hawkoon said:

It was never really a change, as it was a typo to begin with.

Yes, he's a bit situational, but when schemes requiring a marker is in the pool you actually gain a lot of control of the game just by taking Iggy (or just declaring Pandora). Detonate charges and dig their graves are schemes I wouldn't take against Pandora just because of Iggy alone.

And if your opponent declares Parker Barrows... well...

That said, I think Iggy probably works better with wildfire than with woe because he gets a lot more work out of misery in that crew.

I like Iggy a lot. On top of what you already mentioned he's a great Schemerunner himself as he can just hide out auf sight with his Sz 1 and drop markers (obviously depending on terrain).

56 minutes ago, Rift said:

I don't think anyone is saying shes not good

There are some that do. Or did - at least there has been a thread a couple of weeks ago where there's been a somewhat heated argument on whether she is the best or the worst NB master currently.

44 minutes ago, Rift said:

totem is only relevant if enemy is within 12 of z. and you give them pass tokens.

Which you probably have plenty of yourself since fielding a second master most of the time does not result in an overboarding model count in your own crew.

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

Problem is that you get her totem for free, so unlike any other master she doesn't have to pay the extra tax for that, making 17 really low for a master plus totem. 18 before tax would put her more in line with other masters plus totem. 

I agree and I probably wouldn't even be complaining if it would be 19 plus tax. Zoraida is crazy good on her own even though some people seem to argue this fact.

"Instead of Dropping a Shockwave Marker, this Action must center its Shockwave on target Scheme Marker within range.Shockwave 2, Mv 12, Damage 2, Burning +1. Then remove the target."

The exact wording of the 03/07 Iggy card; important parts have been highlighted.

2 minutes ago, f1amius said:

Hire Iggy into Lucius crew grand u about 12 shokwave shots. 

And who is going to place 12 Scheme Markers per turn in a way that Iggy can actually do something with 12 Shockwaves?

I don't see how any crew should have any issues at all with taking out Iggy...

12 hours ago, Kouzelnik said:

I still have hope for old versions of Misery and Opportunist to return. Now this abilities are really to complicated and one of the main ideas of M3E was a bit simplying the rules. More than this, now Woes look nerfed compared to old version and I don't think they deserve it.

Simplification in a game as complex and evolved as Malifaux was a long shot anyway. With the amount of Masters and play styles I seriously doubted a lot of simplification would be possible.

I liked the first iteration of Misery as well but none of my opponents did. And since it was another goal of the new edition to reduce the feeling of not being able to do anything without getting punished harshly (which was why I like Pandora in the first place) I think we came away pretty good with the current Misery. It will trigger less often (probably, most opponents had only 6 cards anyway and not all of them were for cheating) but having the choice of rather dealing 1 Dmg or moving the opponent 2" is a great control mechanism. If played right you can still create the old feeling of hopelessness in your opponents only now it is not by default but because you made the right decisions.

Opportunist had to change due to Misery's changes, unfortunately. It does feel very clunky and as a concept is not very intuitive. Are there any other abilities which rely on the wording of another ability on the same model's stat card in order to work? 

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

@bsm86 I disagree, the stacking part says that if you gain another instance of a condition you already have it is added to the existing condition, specifying that you can only ever have one condition of a type. As I read that it means that non-stacking conditions aren't gained as they cannot be added to the model

It all comes down to how the game term "gain" is to be understood. There is no distinction between a model applying a condition and another model receiving it - it is both just the model "gaining" a condition.

That's why I'm saying it needs clarification. I may be a bit biased since Pandora is my first and most beloved Master... I guess we should link this in the "What needs an FAQ" thread.

13 hours ago, Angelshard said:

From the rulebook:

"A model can only have one instance of each Condition at a time.

If a Condition is canceled by another Condition, both Conditions are immediately removed from the model in question.
Some Conditions have an associated value, such as Burning +1.

If a model with such a Condition gains another instance of that same Condition, the value of the gained Condition is added to the model’s existing value for that Condition to create a single Condition."

As I read this you cannot gain a condition you already have, unless it is a stackable condition. 

You‘re partially right as it does not explicitly say you can. But it does not say you can‘t either.

Only the first sentence matters here since the rest is just describing how Slow and Fast are treated and then how to stack a condition. Both of those don‘t apply and therefore don‘t matter for e.g. Stunned.

26 minutes ago, trikk said:

The life leech example, so that's basically 2). The way I understood the intention of the change, was that basically one aura is resolved. The aura is based on the enemy model. It chooses which aura is resolved. It chooses Sorrow A, so you skip Life Leech on Sorrows B and C. 

 

While I understand the way you read it and it does make RAW sense, this either has to be faqed or changed. I think the intention is to "ignore" the other auras totally.

I think it becomes quite clear if you always see it from the affected models perspective. One aura can affect different models and - as this example shows - possibly even in a different way. Some clarification would be nice though in order to avoid future misunderstandings that are almost guaranteed to happen since it is a completely different approach than it has been in M2E. 

5 minutes ago, trikk said:

This is pretty counter-intuitive and should be cleaned up, regardless of the idea behind it.

What part of the rules do you mean?

• The fact that the controller of the affected model chooses the aura which is applied or
• The fact that multiple auras with the same name are treated differently when it comes to which models aura is to be applied?

In either case I do agree that it should be made more clear in terms of wording the rules. Concerning examples like Life Leech I do not agree that the whole concept needs to be changed.

12 hours ago, solkan said:

Disclaimer:  Life Leech is an example of where it gets weird.  When Life Leech goes off, Life Leach affects multiple models:

• It affects the activating model (causing 1 damage)
• It affects each model with the Life Leech ability (healing 1 damage)

+1

To put into the terms of the rulebook, every Sorrow is affected, thus all of them heal 1. The enemy model is affected but can decide which Sorrow applies the damage (may be important in some Schemes...).