Jump to content

Bort

Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Bort last won the day on February 20

Bort had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

333 Effervescent

About Bort

  • Rank
    Enforcer

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You used Melissa at all? Know the model doesn't exist yet. Same cost as Hunter, different role though.
  2. I don't think Impassable always imply blocking or concealing. Might be in most cases in reality, but I don't think it's guaranteed. A body of water for example will simply be impassable. You cannot step onto it, but it's not going to block/conceal anything. I do like the numbers you came up with. Probably in the realm of over analysing, but that's my wheelhouse.
  3. I stand corrected. Candy gives Fast as a trigger. Obliteration has it on 7 of the 8 keywords models. Nothing alike.
  4. At least the total terrain is down from the 50% table coverage suggested in GG0, which I found a bit crowded. Just another note, the GG0 specifically states Impassable (Climbable) I left out the climbable by mistake. So maybe that makes it better. So all flat roofed buildings are Blocking + Impassable (Climbable) right. Meaning you can climb on top of them, but you can't enter them, and thus covers both parts. I think (especially if you read the Chokepoints/Paths part of the GG0 terrain stuff) they really want you to force engagement lanes instead of jus
  5. Ok, first of all, I haven't seen the discussions, but I can't even fathom how it could have been interpreted differently. But let's not go into something that has already been resolved. And secondly, not being able to cheese it with Glimpse hardly makes it "useless" on a crew that hands out Fast like candy. It forces choices onto the opponent. If something has Fast and is within 4" that can activate, do I activate it and take the 2dmg hit. Or, leave it making it a target for the keyword unburies. It still deals auto dmg in a bubble. *Edit... oops, This meant to be a response to
  6. Just a visual representation for the GG1 terrain density recommendations. 80% Terrain to be Disrupting LOS 70% Terrain to be Disrupting Movement. That implies that 50% of the terrain (or roughly 20% of the table surface) should be covered with terrain with both features. Just, cause, well, I was curios. *Edit. The Impassable are both Impassable and Impassable (Climbable) terrain.
  7. I have mixed feelings about Joss. My first few games he died doing nothing. Then he became MVP in a game against Brewmaster (Whiskey Golem specifically). His anti armor blast gun can come in very useful. Also note that he (same as Melissa) can generate their own tokens by charging each turn instead of walking, making them much easier to operate away from Hoffman while still benefiting from Power tokens. Howard I only played once. He soaked up a lot of damage, and Vent Steam can be a real terror if you can place him in the right spot. I don't have Peacekeeper though, and I belie
  8. I noticed that if you search for something in "cards" the old versions still come up. For example searching "Armor +2" still brings up Soulstone Miner while searching "Armor +1" doesn't. Even though the card found correctly shows the updated "Armor 1". So somewhere there is still a mismatch between the pictures shown, and the underlying text used for the searches.
  9. Actually, thinking about it some more. At 5 wounds Armor +1 for 6 points the SS miner is now below average. Nearly all other 6ss cost models that also have armor +1 have 6 wounds. The only other exception is the resser shieldbearer. Across the board most models have roughly the same number of wounds as their cost. (Obviously with exceptions, but that seems to be the standard starting point). Mostly Armor +2 models pay by having 1 less wound, which is what the miner had. Now the armor got reduced, but the wound wasn't "refunded".
  10. Neither do I really, but was just showing how quickly interpretation can stray. Playing devil's advocate, cause I'm a jerk. As "THE highest TWO" costs can still be interpreted in different ways. The highest cost is 11. Then highest two costs are 11 and 10. The "or tied to" makes it even more open to interpretation. Yup. Agree. Personally I sometimes feel that the the game designers really do a good job at making things clear in the shortest way possible. But other times unfortunately the "shortest way possible" is heavily open for interpretation. If you already know wha
  11. Your suggestion : At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemy models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest two Costs " You also made the argument for binary inclusion. They either fall inside the "2 highest costs" bracket, or they don't. Nothing suggested they should first fall into the highest cost then into the 2nd highest. I just took the binary interpretation into absurdum because I don't agree with your original use of binary inclusion for "highest cost" in the first place. "The two highest costs" in my example is "11ss and 10ss". Clearly the opponents 10ss
  12. I hear what you are saying. I just can't think of a cleaner way to state the scheme (or any of my interpretations of the scheme) Unfortunately your suggested wording doesn't make it any clearer. Because if (as you suggest) we use "the highest 2 costs" it can be interpreted as: Enemy has 10ss and 10ss remaining. You have 11ss and 10ss. Now, the highest 2 costs as you put it, is "11ss and 10ss". And both the enemies fall within this bucket since they are "tied for it". If, as you suggest, both enemies have to be tied at the same cost and be the most expens
  13. S.A.S. Well, I have a very small malifaux collection, owning only a Hoffman Crew. I scratch built a pair of these 3 weeks ago, and got to play them once. (since I play like a game every other week). So personally to me it sucks. But, truth be told I believe it was needed. I looked at my crew options, weighed S.A.S. against my keyword 8ss Hunters and just couldn't see the Hunters making a list. So for the game as a whole I believe it was the right move. Versatile should be a decent option, but not automatically superior to your own keyword options. SS miner. I honestly beli
  14. If I can weigh in as a 2nd language english speaker. To me the wording seems clunky, but intent seemed clear enough on first reading. I read it to mean: "At the end of the Turn, if the 2 highest cost enemy models are in play and at half or less than their maximum health, gain 1 VP." But now I have read it a few times, and every time came up with different meanings, and I now lean towards (b). Otherwise they could have just used easier language. So here are my possible interpretations: (For all of these include the "ignore Summons and Leaders", didn't want to type
  15. First thing I did was to look through the minions to see where I can use it to greatest effect. Only have/play Hoffman, so anything to help the slow bots along is useful. I came to the conclusion that Riotbreaker's guns line up perfectly having an 8" range. The question then became, is a Riotbreaker + Upgrade at 9 points really worth it to "teleport" shoot my models forward? Especially since I can basically do the same thing, but easier using a 9 point Guardian with Toss instead. Other option I considered was with Riflemen, but same issue. At 9 points (6 + tax + upgrade) is it really
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information