Jump to content

ezramantis

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

ezramantis's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

43

Reputation

  1. We had the same considerations. That's why we have the setup i outlined. Closer to regular rules. And that's what i would kind of hope for in an official 3 player "mode"
  2. Also, if you don't have a circular board, the important thing is that the deployment zones are equidistant from the center of the board. So on a square space just measure to find the center on the deployment zones. We've done this and just placed a marker there so it's clear to everyone where the deployment zone is
  3. It'd be swell to get an official 3 player setup from wyrd. I think it would be a great help to budding malifaux groups to keep them from losing momentum. Or even just groups that find themselves with an odd number of players occasionally.
  4. When we've played 3 player games in the past we divide a circular board up into 3 sections, as adrian suggested. (Its been awhile and i don't have the board handy so i cant remember if fhe diameter was 3' or slighty larger. I wanna say 40"?) We find the center point, draw a line, and divide in 60 degree increments. Every 3rd increment is a centerline and the ones between point to the center of the deployment zones. For deployment we make "half circles" centered on where the deployment zone marks intersect the board edge. Each deployment zone is equidistant from the center of the board. I think we've used a radius of 4-6" for these. The strat and scheme pool needs to be selected to avoid weirdness. We pick a strat that doesn't rely on just 1 opponent, and then 2 schemes that everyone plays. 1 scheme scores against the player to your left, the other against the player to your right. This ensures you are playing against both of your opponents. The center line for you is the two lines to the left and right of your deployment zone. The enemy table half is the 1/3 that has the targeted opponent's deployment zone. As far as not having "hidden schemes" it's never been a problem. With 2 opponents on the board there's always been enough going on strategically that not having to guess what people are doing has freed up brain space to consider the complexity added by a 3rd player (how many of my mooks defend vs left vs defend right vs score left/right/strat).
  5. I'm with maniacal_cackle. A piece of paper, felt, plastic, what have you to define the area of the fog. Then place wispy bits on that area. I like using shapes cut from the thin clear plastic that packaging shells are made from. It defines the area without obscuring the playmat or terrain board underneath. This is how i do my forests and other severe terrain as well. I have a bunch of trees and rocks that I scatter about on pieces of green heathered felt. This setup allows me to move the trees/rocks during a game to accomodate model placement. You can also get clear vinyl at some fabric/craft stores if you'd like something more flexible and with a bit of grip. It's sometimes sold as a tablecloth cover or, i guess, for old ladies to make couch covers? Could even speckle some paint onto it to give it a visual difference from the mat below it without completely obscuring the mat. (Dang, that's a good idea. I'm gonna try that.)
  6. This is how we've been playing it, because the objective seems to make more sense that way. It makes it confusing when you explain a rule to new players (like friendly/enemy) and then something like this comes up that randomly flies in the face of what you've previously explained to them. It hurts their (already taxing) learning process.
  7. Is the strat marker that is dropped when a model discards an intel token... A) enemy to the model B) enemy to the opponent who is dropping the marker We keep reading that durn second paragraph and seeing it both ways. The wording is wonky. The rulebook says: "Enemy models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into the opponent’s Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by the opponent’s Crew. Every Ability, Action, and Trigger on a model’s Stat Card and Attached Upgrades treats the use of “friendly” and “enemy” from its point of view." So firstly, this is not on a model's stat card so we're not sure if the entire sentence in the strat should be read according to the model's point of view. If so it would be "A" above. But if not from the model's point of view, then who's? The opponent's, making it "B" above? And where can I find clarification for this to point to when explaining this strat to an opponent (especially one to whom I have already explained the model's point of view rule)? Enemy markers are those dropped by an opponent's crew, so since the opponent is dropping it, it would likewise be "A" above. This means that I kill an opponent's model, I drop a (friendly to me/enemy to them) marker and then they have to retrieve it to score points. Making this a strat where if i don't kill their models (or they don't kill their own models) no strat markers are dropped and they can't score points from the strat. Right? I'm gonna stop there, because if I go into all the arguments, interpretations, and justifications that we've explored I'll be here all day. Would someone clean up the second paragraph of this strat for me and give me rules to cite so that I can explain it to others definitively? Please and thank you
  8. Thanks gang. It's been an interesting match so far.
  9. The above scenario additionally assumes that there are no other models with Unionized within 3" of the defending model.
  10. We're playing an Ironsides vs Ironsides game and are looking for assurances that we're doing this right. The Unionized ability doesn't differentiate between friendly and enemy. So if my model with Unionized attacks an enemy model within 3" that has Unionized, the enemy model gets a pos flip to it's wp or df. Ja?
  11. I'm not a fan of the sculpts for will o' the wisp and adze. Love the rest of swampfiend keyword, and would like to own the whole set, but I just can't bring myself to buy those models. I have instead built proxies out of wire and cheap craftstore puffballs. If there's ever a resculpt though...
  12. This just came up in my latest game so I figured I'd "reactivate" the thread and see if there was new information. We ruled the front edge of the model moves to the "center" of the marker cause it seemed the most balanced ruling and easy enough to approximate. After that point the model is (arguably) moving away from the center of the object.
  13. I like HH, but people wanna play with their masters. Especially new players. Personally I like having a wider variety of leaders in the form of henchmen. I also realy like mixing up strats and schemes so HH gets stale for me quickly. Might be cool to play 35ss henchmen led games. Not sure how many summoners are out there outside of masters.
  14. I've thought of it and I might do that one day. But honestly my reason for starting this thread was less about finding alternatives to 35ss games and more about exploring how to approach them in terms of crew building. There's something nice about fewer models on the table, especially for players who are new to skirmish gaming or aren't accustomed to the complexity of options and interactions that a typical game of malifaux presents.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information