Jump to content

Silbuster

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Silbuster's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

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

Recent Badges

2

Reputation

  1. Thanks “Thatguy”. Is it possible that Americans would say “TN on the action “ rather than “TN of the action “?
  2. Agree, Jordan. I used all three plus a mannequin each in M2E. They seem to lack a role in M3E. I think they, and their mannequins, need a bit more speed to compete as scheme runners.
  3. Agree on the showgirls. Great models. Lacklustre performance. They might work at Mv 6.
  4. Hello “Thatguy”; a suitably anonymous moniker, if I may say so. That is exactly what I said to the pair of them but they weren’t having any of it. Any other ideas for convincing the illiterate?
  5. A lot of this post looks like ancient history after two intervening errata. Given GG2, how do players feel about Colette? I feel that her downgrade is bad but not fatal but, what really disappoints me, is that, unlike McCabe, whose nerfing at least introduced a buff which radically improves the synergy of a wastrel crew, there is no such synergy for the performers. The changes to Colette in GG2 only introduce dependencies on other performers. They are not stronger together; the absence of other performers only makes Colette weaker.
  6. Two of the players here interpret the "Adventure Awaits" differently. They think that "...TN of actions on other friendly wastrels..." concerns only actions that McCabe takes on other wastrel models such as "Ride with me" or "Take this" or ... well, there is nothing else actually. I do not even regard this as a starter since if it were this trivial then there would be little point in adding it to his abilities. However, I have to concede that it is poorly worded and "TN of actions on the cards of other friendly wastrels" would have been better. What do you think?
  7. Looking at the thread, it appears that there is an appetite for using the little guys but no agreement on how it might be practicable to bring this about. Changing the costs or attributes of figures would be too difficult. Perhaps the easiest way would be to try and exploit their primary advantage. Numbers. Via the strategy. For example, there could be an "incriminating evidence" strategy where every figure in your crew, except the insignificant, starts with an "incriminating evidence" token. If the figure carrying such a token is killed, then its owner drops an "incriminating evidence" marker anywhere in base contact with the killed figure. "Incriminating evidence" tokens and markers only incriminate the opposing crew. Hence the only tokens and counters that count towards a player's score are those carried or dropped by his own figures. 1/ At the end of each turn after the first, if there are at least three "incriminating evidence" tokens or markers on the opposing table half, then score one point. Then remove three "incriminating evidence" tokens or markers from the enemy table half. 2/ Enemy "incriminating evidence" markers can be destroyed by friendly figures using an interact action. 3/ Friendly "incriminating evidence" markers can be picked up and converted to tokens by friendly figures using an interact action. A figure can only carry one "incriminating evidence" token.
  8. In Mailifaux v2, little guys, meaning minions between 4 and 6 stones, were an option. True, they did not survive too well but they did give you additional AP and since, at least to begin with, your side had more figures than the opposition, then you moved last. Always a valuable method for getting the drop on somebody. Fast forward to v3 and the introduction of pass tokens. I very much like v3 but I also like the little guys. Unfortunately, v3 does not like the them at all: 1/ No longer does superior numbers allow the larger crew to move last. Which it did in v2 (for the first few turns!) 2/ Because the smaller crew of big guys can wait (spend pass tokens) to see where some of the little guys have moved to, the chances of the little guys actually surviving long enough to achieve anything is lower in v3 than v2. 3/ As in v2, two little guys in v3 stand little or no chance of taking on a big guy (2 five stones vs 1 ten stone) on even terms. This was fair in v2 because no pass tokens meant that part of the price of the little guys was the increased AP and moving last. In v3, the moving last disappeared but the combat characteristics of the little guys did not improve to compensate. The conclusion is that the little guys are just not cost-effective in v3. Given the lists that most players use in competitions are almost entirely made up of at least 8 stone figures, with the occasional little guy for a specialised role, then that looks evident. Despite which, crew boxes include several figures of a little guy kind which are almost never going to make it to the tabletop. There are three geishas with Youko, three showgirls with Colette and three ruffians with Lucas. Does anyone ever use all three (or any) in a game (apart from me)? I doubt it because they do not make the grade. One sharp intake of breath from a Rider and they are inhumed. The reason is that they are not cost effective. In my opinion, they need to be cheaper in order to achieve, as Josef Stalin put it, the quality of quantity.
  9. "When a friendly Colette...would use or discard a Soulstone, It may instead kill this model to gain the effect of the spent Soulstone." My interpretation is that Colette does not use a Soulstone if she kills the Dove. She obtains the effect of using a Soulstone but no Soulstone changes hands. Consequently, "when an enemy...would use a Soulstone" does not apply. Colette is using a Dove instead of a Soulstone.
  10. Let's assume that Pandora engages in a willpower duel with her target and wins.. She can then: "Choose one of the target's non-shockwave attack actions. This action gains the effect, cost and any special restrictions of the chosen action." Let's say that she chooses a # attack. Can she use that attack up to the range of her self loathing attack or does she have to be within the range of the # attack of her target? I think that it is the former; in other words, the target hits itself. Let's say that she chooses a pistol ranged attack. Can she actually do this unless that pistol ranged attack is also a # attack? I am assuming that it is the target which must suffer the effect of the attack (usually damage) so that it must shoot itself and not another member of its crew. But it cannot use a ranged pistol attack within its own # range, assuming that it has one, which would preclude this as an option?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information