Bort

1 hour ago, trikk said:

My biggest successes with Hoff were:

Hoff + Totem

Joss + LLC
Ryle/Howard (depending on DMH)
Toolkit
2x Hunter
Watcher

You can add a second watcher if needed.

 

You used Melissa at all?  Know the model doesn't exist yet.  Same cost as Hunter, different role though.

10 minutes ago, JArrow said:

If you add facts that impassable terrain is always blocking or concealing, and descriptions that majority of movement disrupting should be impassable and LOS-blocking should be evenly between block and conceal you end up following distribution (by table percents):

Blocking-Impassable (buildings): ~15% = about wedge deployment area

Concealing-severe (forests): ~4% 

Concealing/dense (fogs): ~8% = about corner deployment area

Severe (hazardous, rough ground etc) ~12% = about half of standard deployment area

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. 

15 hours ago, Zeus said:

I think the statement that obliteration crew “hands out fast like candy” is a gross exaggeration ....

I stand corrected.

Candy gives Fast as a trigger.

Obliteration has it on 7 of the 8 keywords models.   Nothing alike.

1 hour ago, Morgan Vening said:

Hmm... Not sure I'm a fan of that 50%.

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 just having a big open field of play.

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Age to destruction will only happen if the model starts its activation with 4". If the model was buried, and then unburies at the start of its activation, it won't count as starting its activation within 4"

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 @ShinChan  rather than @Adran

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.

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 believe that Howard and Peacekeeper takes up the same role in the army as melee beater.

As for the little bots.  Mobile toolkit is cheap, and has higher defense than any other augmented.  But it's there for utility.  It's never going to kill anything. So I use it when I have a few stones to spare.

And medical Automatons I have only played against crews where I felt condition removal was required. But they actually suck at it because they need to hit something and do at least 1 dmg (after armor) to remove conditions.  But I have very limited models so it was my only option.  One other thing they can do is keep Ryle alive, which sounds odd since he is not Living. But "Code Red" and anything with Hard to Kill goes together nice.   (PS. Phiona is also Hard to Kill AND Living so they can work well with her)

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.

On 3/6/2020 at 8:31 AM, Bort said:

SS miner.  I honestly believe it got hit harder than it should have as an over reaction to how much it was used.  I believe it wasn't really so much a "good" model as an "easy" one.  It had one job, it did it without me requiring to think about it.  Now... meh.

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".  

26 minutes ago, Jinn said:

Just to be clear, I don't think it is a valid interpretation to say that two 10SS models have the two highest Costs when there is an 11SS model and a 10SS model (these two models have one of the highest two costs, but in this case the scheme would be checking whether they have THE highest TWO costs, which they wouldn't).

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. 

26 minutes ago, Jinn said:

I think the original scheme isn't sufficiently clear; actually the fact that cost is capitalised even further indicates that it is a singular thing IMO. If I didn't suspect that the designers intent was for it to refer to the two highest cost models (which I only suspect because of how ridiculously difficult such a scheme would be) I think it would certainly read as checking whether or not two enemy models have the highest cost. 'The highest Cost' does not in any way say or imply to me that there should be two different soulstone costs that we can/should be looking at; on wording alone without context it strongly indicates the opposite.

I'm just trying to say that the scheme ought to be more clear, because it is not necessary to leave it worded so ambiguously. 

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 what you mean, you read it, and it makes perfect sense. But you become blind to other ways of reading it.  Especially passing different language barriers.  I also feel that sometimes we need the RAW card sized descriptions which is nice and simple, easy to scan through for reference etc.  But then we also need a long worded explanation of RAI with examples. But then, maybe that's what forum discussions are for.

7 minutes ago, Jinn said:

I'd disagree here, as the enemy would only have one of the highest two costs, the '10SS' one. The highest two costs in this case are 11SS and 10SS, by having at least one 10SS model they get one of them.

Edit: I suppose there would be the scenario where you and your opponent have an 11SS and a 10SS model, so both of you have two models that are at least tied for the two highest costs. That seems fine from a balance standpoint though.

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 both fall within the (tied for) 10ss and hench binary interpretation. My point was language and interpretation are tricky beasts.

But we are now going into discussion on your suggested wording instead of the actual wording and have clearly strayed way off track.   Bottom line, scheme not clear if you start overthinking.

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemy
models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest two
Costs and both models are at half or less than their
maximum Health, gain 1 VP. Leaders and models
with Summon Upgrades are ignored for revealing this
Scheme.
End: At the end of the game, if there is no more than
one enemy model without a Summon Upgrade in play
that has Health equal to its maximum Health, gain 1
VP.

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". 

8 minutes ago, Jinn said:

My problem with interpreting it that way is that "if there are two enemy models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest Cost" is very far from "the two enemy models with highest cost" or even "if the two highest cost models are enemy models". Having highest Cost reads to me as a binary state, you either have it or you don't. The wording of the scheme leaves it very open to the possibility of this requirement not being met (possibly only due to the possibility of you having higher cost models than your opponent) which makes it read very ambiguously IMO.

Either way I think this scheme needs to be slightly reworded to make it clear exactly how it is supposed to work.

If, as you suggest, both enemies have to be tied at the same cost and be the most expensive (or at least nothing in your crew can be more expensive than the enemies') then I totally agree, this thing becomes really hard to score.

12 hours ago, Jordon said:

What are people's feelings about the changes to the SS miner and S.A.S.?

Personally I can still see a lot of value in the miner. Certainly not as powerful as it was but definitely still a valuable model in a good many schemes. I think it's a good change

The S.A.S. however got slapped pretty hard. I now think I'll be looking for in keyword beaters over these. Which is probably still a good change overall.

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 believe it got hit harder than it should have as an over reaction to how much it was used.  I believe it wasn't really so much a "good" model as an "easy" one.  It had one job, it did it without me requiring to think about it.  Now... meh.

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

By the wording of the scheme it checks whether there are two enemy models in play that have the highest Cost. If I asked 'how many models in play have the highest Cost?' and you said 'two, this 11SS model and this 10SS model' I would be very confused. 

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 it out every time)

a) "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."

    With this interpretation you would look at the start of the game which are the most expensive enemies, and target them for the scheme. Once you get them both to half/below but still in play at end of turn. Score.  So now if the enemy crew contains a 11ss, 10ss, 10ss it means that the 11ss is required. And either one of the 10ss models.  (and the 10ss ones "is tied for" highest) 

b) "At the end of Turn. Check what are the 2 most expensive models in play. If both are in the enemy crew, and they are both at/below half, gain 1 VP. "

    With this interpretation you look at game state end of turn.  Check all the remaining models (checking BOTH my and my opponent's crew).  Find the most expensive, and this is where @Jinn interpretation of "or is tied for" referring to your models makes sense to me.    See if both are in enemy crew and at/below half.  If they are, score.

So if enemy has an 11ss, 10ss and 10ss in play AND you have an 11ss remaining you can't score.   Because the 2 highest cost models are not both enemy models, since your own 11ss one has the highest cost.

But if instead enemy has an 11ss, 10ss and 10ss in play AND you have an 10ss remaining you can. Because now the 2 highest cost models are the 11ss one, and any one of the all the "tied" 10ss ones. So as long as the 11ss enemy model and one of the enemy 10ss ones are half/below your good to go.

*Edit.  In this interpretation it also means you can score if at the end of turn enemy has for example an 8ss & 6ss both on/below half, and all you have are 6ss or cheaper models. Even if you both started out with 9+ss cost models in your crews.

BUT, for both interpretations I had, it's perfectly fine to have a 11 cost and 10 cost remaining.  They are still the highest cost and I agree with @dzlier on how highest cost in a list is calculated. Highest cost = 2 most expensive. Doesn't require them to have the same cost.  Simply requires them to cost more or the same as all other models.

20 hours ago, 4thstringer said:

New No Prisoners is interesting.  @Gnomezilla mentioned combining it with toss, which is very interesting.

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 worth it at all?

Then I noticed Warden restraint claw is also 8".  So that also works.  Makes the target slow and then throw him with a beater.  Might just work.

37 minutes ago, theamazingmrg said:

I think the biggest problem with Watchers is they are so fragile, tbh.  For something like Breakthrough they're fast enough to succeed at it but they'll still die to a stiff wind if looked at the wrong way, even with Armor +1.  Hoffman's Power Tokens offset that a little bit, but they won't have those if they're in other crews.

Even in Hoff crew they really only get 1 token, and that is if they setup in the 6" bubble.  After that they are usually out of range to get more. They are real fast, but like you say, quite squishy.

Compare with Necropunk (as an example) they are bad scheme runners.  (Ok, figure this is a really unfair comparison as I only took one example at semi-random)

Necro is 5 points, Df4, 5" mv.  But with the same 1+ Armor, Hard to Wound, 6 wounds and Leap.    So leap + mv + interact gives it an effective 11" range to interact.  

Watcher is only 4 points (so 5 with tax for all but hoffman).  Better Df at 5.   But then only 4 wounds and armor 1 and no other defense tech. So it's going to die. And the 7" looks better on the card, and we can do the self transfer power trick for another 2".  So only 9" effective interact range.

1 minute ago, Adran said:

Obey does work in GG0, but the costs are paid by the model with obey, rather than the obeyed model (which tied in with things like cards and soulstone came from your crew).  You can still obey a model to drop an evidence marker for example, and you can certainly obey an enemy to move a cursed idol, only now the obeyer takes the damage rather than the obeyed model.

I was reading it as the intent was to not allow you to remove the opponents scoring markers,

Its worth remembering A model that is in control of its own actions is a "Friendly controlled" model as well

 

Hehe, well, i'm definitely not going to go into a rules debate with you.  Your knowledge of the rules are far superior to mine.  (Just based on your responses all over this forum).

But it's interesting to see how quickly interpretation can differ.     

And looking at the complete sentence (and what you said) there are quite a lot of info/requirements there.  "Friendly-Controlled model"  as well  as "Enemy Strategy Marker".

Basically comes down to does "Friendly-Controlled" mean:

• Friendly and Controlled

or

• Controlled by a friendly.

Yay language.

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

Your rules quote is right.

I am reading the phrase "a Friendly controlled model" to be a model contolled by a model that is friendly to you. So if you are in control of the model at this point it is a friendly controlled model, even if it isn't a friendly model.

Now that I type that out, I can see other readings.

I'm pretty certain that exact wording was chosen to specifically make them non-Obey.   ie.  Both Friendly to you and Controlled by you.

My reason is, the initial M3E strats was written with the Obey problem. Then GG0 reworded them so Obey doesn't work.  So it wouldn't make sense for them to then bring out new Strats in GG1 with Obey once again being a problem.

Bottom line, I don't think Obeyed models should be scoring strategies. 

But yeah, after you explained it I also now understand how you interpreted it.    In your interpretation it almost sounds like only indirect controlled models can score.  So ONLY obeyed models can score because they are friendly models, controlling another model.   

*EDIT.  This is similar to the non- tactical action discussion.  

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Its the opposite- it means Obey will work. Because whilst you are doing an obey they are a friendly controlled model, so can remove the marker

Incorrect.  P26

"Regardless of control the model does not change which models it considers friendly and which it considers an enemy. Control changes who makes the decisions it 
does not change the Crew to which the model belongs"

2 hours ago, Nagi21 said:

Runic binding seems... fiddly and in need of clarifications on release.  We're officially in the territory of calculus and trigonometry. 

Seems simple enough.   Any 3 scheme markers on the table will always make a triangle unless they are in a perfectly straight line.  Any other situation they will make a triangle.

If any 3 are within 10" of each other (That to me means each of the 3 has to be within 10" of both the others.  Only part I see that can be slightly confusing) you take the triangle and see if there are enough enemy models inside. Done.

Yup, that is correct. Caffeine overdose makes you really fast.

3 hours ago, Ogid said:

Good point about the EoF upgrade... I also guess they will get their effigy/emissary pair, both for consistency and because it's the way Henchman leaders are balanced (free effigy and posibility to upgrade for only 2SS); and probaby someone with the Crossroad keyword, it's not like they are meta defining but it's a cute gimmick.

Good lord, 4 riders in the same crew... 

 

@Bort, I've been checking the diagram a bit more, some feedback:

The one right now points where models with certain keywords are, however it'd be also interesting to add (or make a different one if that would become too messy) some information about Master and Henchmans crews (so more focused in playable crews, not just model allocation).

For example:

• NVB: Henchmans allow to play all the master's keywords with the exception of Chimera, Elite+Mimic and Puppet only (all those have no henchman). But it also allow to play some keywords or dual keywords inaccessible for masters: Puppets+QiandGong (Hinamatsu), Puppets+Nightmare (Widow Weaver), Nightmare+Woe (The Carver), Half-Blood (Angel Eyes) and Crossroads (Wrath).

A Diagram showing aditional options if someone is willing to play with Henchmans leaders would be informative. For example, in the above there is no difference between the lines in Nephillims NBV/OUT and Foundry in ARC+TT/BAY; however from a "posible leader" point of view Nephillims are a playable crew in both factions (Barbaros is a henchman) but Bayou has no Master or Henchman with the Foundry keyword.

I don't really see how I can show that differently.  

I do understand what you mean with Foundry.     There is no Foundry Bayou master/hench.   So there is no possible crew that will have Bayou upgrades / Versatile models if a Foundry leader was declared.   Making Foundry either 10T & Arcanists when using  Mei Feng  but Foundry is strictly 10T when using Kang as leader.

And for Nephilim if Barbaros was declared as the leader then you will be able to use Outcast upgrades / Versatiles along with some Nephilim.  Which is a completely different hiring pool than when using the Neverborn Nephilim leaders, with NVB upgrades / Versatiles and just being able to add Barbaros. 

  (Yeah, realise I'm roughly repeating and rephrasing what you said, but I had to carefully think though it to understand the problem.   )

The best I can come up with is making yet another figure, like the Master one, but with the Henchman names.   Once again I believe it will look 90% similar, with a few changes here and there. Will see next week how I feel about that one. 

*Edit.  The Carver on the other hand doesn't change anything, since both Woe and Nightmare are both strictly NVB the pool of accessible models doesn't change. The tax on them might vary slightly between hench and masters, but not faction or availability.

1 hour ago, SerZaka said:

I will explain better.

I don't think they are going to add any new double faction master . In that case you will have some faction with 9 character other with 8... Not their style .

 

Yup.  Based on the research I did for the Master / Keyword diagrams it seems that they like the 8 masters per faction, with a max of 3 dual masters format.

That's why I said "someone ... becomes dual".    But I also doubt that they will change a master to be dual halfway through. 

So keeping to their pattern of 5/6 faction masters with 3/2 dual masters in that faction I expect to see 6 Explorer only masters with no new dual-faction ones.

But, there is also nothing preventing them from breaking that pattern.   I like that all the inclusions forms a nice pattern... but that's hardly a "rule".   

3 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 

You usually have 7-9 masters for a faction, right?

Just being pedantic, but since I just finished my Master Venn Diagram yesterday I can state that (excluding Explorers since they are growing), and ignoring DMH. Each faction has exactly 8 masters.

Hmmm... and, if Wyrd sticks to the pattern Explorers should get at most 1 more Dual faction master coming from Bayou, Ressers or Outcasts.  

Thematically Bayou makes most sense.  (Well, in my head Swampfiend makes most sense, because I see crocodile dundee / crocodile hunter in my head when I think of those, and she is already dual)   Although all of them already have their 8 masters.   So if they truly stick to the pattern with 8 masters per faction and max 3 dual masters someone from within one of these factions should become dual master.   

And then there should be 5 new masters dedicated to Explorers.

2 hours ago, le_wahou said:

The crossroads  are the white background ? 🙂

I actually thought I did mention them, so was confused by the comment.  Then checked and noticed I got Crossroads and Horseman confused in my original post.