Jump to content

Sparks 0 action actually really good


lame0

Recommended Posts

So I asked a totally different question on the rules discussion about sparks but it seems that something else came up.

So His zero makes you do a ca 6 tn 12 vs wp attack action to make a model a construct and give it armor +1. 

So basically if you use it and don't have a marker and succeed but get the mask or tomes trigger you dont get anything in the main effect but you do get the trigger. Both of which are useful for somer. 

Somer could 1 be pushed 4 inches twice (for being attacked twice) with the tomes trigger using his trigger or get pushed 4 +5 off the mask trigger.  Throw in a packed with explosives miss on somer and a walk action from sparks and you have a somer that moved 12-13 and got accompliced. (same for fingers)

This basically imo breathes new life into what was a super niche model because that 0 in addition to being able to do the action for its real effect later in the game makes sparks good.   

In defense of this tactic if a model attacks and uses a success trigger it doesn't matter what happens during the attack the trigger goes off. (ie: pere ravage would still kill himself even if he got the black joker for damage on his breathe fire). Funny how long this went without being noticed.

Even not taking somer into account moving Burt, pere, swine-cursed into position for a nice charge with accomplice is sick. (5 inch push -> walk and/or charge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...? I'm not sure I get it. Do you just mean that you attack with something beneficial someone who has Loudest Squeel (or Stumble Around Drunk) and then instead of relenting, you cheat/flip in Masks?

I've used these sorts of "attacks" a lot against Fingers and Moon Shinobis (mostly because I don't play Somer much at all) when I have Masks to spare. Trixie's Lure and her Poison thingy (just don't flip Crows) are very nice for this as is, e.g., Mah's Horrible Hollering. Francois' Gremlin Menace is also fine, though takes somewhat careful positioning to be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

...? I'm not sure I get it. Do you just mean that you attack with something beneficial someone who has Loudest Squeel (or Stumble Around Drunk) and then instead of relenting, you cheat/flip in Masks?

I've used these sorts of "attacks" a lot against Fingers and Moon Shinobis (mostly because I don't play Somer much at all) when I have Masks to spare. Trixie's Lure and her Poison thingy (just don't flip Crows) are very nice for this as is, e.g., Mah's Horrible Hollering. Francois' Gremlin Menace is also fine, though takes somewhat careful positioning to be worth it.

what I mean is on somer you do something like this:

1) Skeeter "do it like this for mask"->  move up a bit

2) Sparks does "Metal Platin' Means You's a Robot" -> get it to pass (needs a 6) don't relent just play out the attack and make Somer lose (between low cards in hand and bayou two card it should be easy.) Use the mask trigger on both models.

3) Somer is pushed 5" by Go Get 'em then pushed 4" by loudest squeel  Total actions used Sparks (0) action and a Skeeter activation. if more movement is needed then do below if not skip to 6.. 

4) Sparks does "packed with explosives" -> he or Somer cause a fail ( if Sparks doesn't hit the tn that works as well)

5) Somer can push another 4 inches from do it like this + loudest squeel.

6) If accomplice is needed then do 7 otherwise do whatever with sparks.

7) Sparks walks 5 towards Somer and he then ends allowing Somer to activate off of accomplice (make sure the last push was within 6 of sparks walk distance).

Total max is 11-13 inch move for Somer if they were base to base and a 5 inch move for sparks with accomplice into Somer. You don't even need Somer to be the accomplice target but I'd assume that would be the point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. But like I said, I thought that everyone was using Loudest Squeel like that already? I mean, Sparks is really good for that yes, but there are lots of avenues for doing that in general.

I once propelled Fingers an absolutely ungodly distance by Obeying her to Walk with Zoraida and having low Masks to have him fail resists with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Sure. But like I said, I thought that everyone was using Loudest Squeel like that already? I mean, Sparks is really good for that yes, but there are lots of avenues for doing that in general.

I once propelled Fingers an absolutely ungodly distance by Obeying her to Walk with Zoraida and having low Masks to have him fail resists with.

Well the accomplice and psudo 4 action is the key. I feel like Sparks was not used because he felt pretty useless without a scrap marker or one of our not so great constructs. Now getting 16-18 inches of movement and accomplicing somer (11-13 of that being on somer). seems like a very different use. Also for a 6 of masks or a stone (he is a henchman) he can make burt, swine-cursed, taxidermist, and pere have a 17-20 inch charge range ( or get 3 attacks at their normal charge range). Even him moving Trixie with her gun him potentially packing the enemy with explosives (not nessisary but could be useful) and then her shooting herself back into safety would be cool.

Overall im not saying he's auto take but that push (especially how it works with somer) , his accomplice, armor 1, 7 wounds,  average wp & def, and his 2 aura makes him pretty great for a 7 stone henchman with potentially more resilience than a taxidermist or Burt (he can stone for prevention if he is really needed). Also this makes him synergize better with his auras because it means he does want to push more forward and not waste his 0 on our kind of bad constructs or shooting from the rear with Lazarus/pigapult.

Also accomplice is arguably one of the strongest abilities in the game. Look at collodi, dreamer, and marcus which are all at or near the top in their respective factions. It is not the only reasons they are good but we can all see the pattern. What makes them good users of it is that they can manipulate the board state before passing to another strong model (attacking, summoning, moving, etc). With the push Sparks starts to do something similar.

Also it's not like somers the only guy who can do it but his call to fame is he doesn't waste many resources and is so flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing that that it is very neat with Sparks. I was mostly wondering how this can be a new thing since propelling Loudest Squeel models with non-threatening or beneficial Attacks has been in my toolbox for a long time and in general I feel that Somer doesn't walk but mostly just Loudest Squeels everywhere. So every model should be considered for this role, Sparks included. But if this is indeed something entirely new, then good for Sparks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I'm not disputing that that it is very neat with Sparks. I was mostly wondering how this can be a new thing since propelling Loudest Squeel models with non-threatening or beneficial Attacks has been in my toolbox for a long time and in general I feel that Somer doesn't walk but mostly just Loudest Squeels everywhere. So every model should be considered for this role, Sparks included. But if this is indeed something entirely new, then good for Sparks!

Well the fact that for Sparks (0) action he is pushed 5" then pushed 4" is crazy efficient. No way around that. Regular pushes other models can do but the 9 inches of push = awesome for such a low cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not a very cunning player (shame on me!!), in that i still read the cards and fail to see the tricks that the wordings provide, so this thread has been helpful for me, at least!

E.g. I was under the assumption that you needed a Scrap marker in order to be able to use that (0) at all, so there you go - I just needed to read it more carefully. And with an eye to abusing it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2017 at 2:22 PM, lame0 said:

So I asked a totally different question on the rules discussion about sparks but it seems that something else came up.

So His zero makes you do a ca 6 tn 12 vs wp attack action to make a model a construct and give it armor +1. 

So basically if you use it and don't have a marker and succeed but get the mask or tomes trigger you dont get anything in the main effect but you do get the trigger. Both of which are useful for somer. 

 

Important note based on actually reading his card.

It doesn't work

His 0 action requires you to target a scrap marker, so if there isnt' a marker, the action can't be declared because it doesn't have legal targtes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

Important note based on actually reading his card.

It doesn't work

His 0 action requires you to target a scrap marker, so if there isnt' a marker, the action can't be declared because it doesn't have legal targtes

Too many damn targets. The trigger says "after succeeding against target gremlin" and it is an attack action. Attacks could only target models last time I checked, so we know that the target of the action is the gremlin and the marker part just uses target to need LoS or something I would assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has 2 targets, its not unknown for actions to have 2 targets, both targets have to be legal to declare the action. 

From a rules point of view I'm sure we can't have an attack target 0 or 2 models, but targetting 1 model and 1 or more markers is fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Adran said:

It has 2 targets, its not unknown for actions to have 2 targets, both targets have to be legal to declare the action. 

From a rules point of view I'm sure we can't have an attack target 0 or 2 models, but targetting 1 model and 1 or more markers is fine. 

The rulebook says they require a target (singular) so I'm 100% in agreement that you need someone to resolve the duel against but I'm not sure if they require all their marker targets. Reminds me more of Pandora attacking someone without the right form of attack to do the duel but fail in the resolution of the action. Could you mention a few others that work that way so I can look them up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actions which target a marker include Molemen (0) to move to a scheme marker, or seduction from the performer. 

Actions which involve more than 1 target include Blade and claw. 

Thats from the top of my head.

Liliths Tangle shadows famously doesn't have a second target because that way she can use herself as the second model, and she couldn't target herself with an attack. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

The rulebook says they require a target (singular) so I'm 100% in agreement that you need someone to resolve the duel against but I'm not sure if they require all their marker targets. Reminds me more of Pandora attacking someone without the right form of attack to do the duel but fail in the resolution of the action. Could you mention a few others that work that way so I can look them up?

"The model also declares any variable in the Action. This depends on the Action, as
some Actions have different variables, or affect multiple targets.

It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action,
the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target.
Line of Sight (LoS) and Range are discussed further on page 40."

Rulebook says that an action can have multiple targets. It also says that target needs to be within range and LoS. That means that you are breaking the rules if you try to resolve an action without declaring a target or choose a target that's not within LoS and range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Adran said:

Actions which target a marker include Molemen (0) to move to a scheme marker, or seduction from the performer. 

Actions which involve more than 1 target include Blade and claw. 

Thats from the top of my head.

Liliths Tangle shadows famously doesn't have a second target because that way she can use herself as the second model, and she couldn't target herself with an attack. 

 

All of those are tacticals. Tacticals are different than attacks in that they don't require a defender and frequently target markers. Attacks don't have targets as their duel-target from what I know since they don't have stats and can't take duels.

12 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

The model also declares any variable in the Action. This depends on the Action, as
some Actions have different variables, or affect multiple targets.

It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action,
the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target.
Line of Sight (LoS) and Range are discussed further on page 40.

Rulebook says that an action can have multiple targets. It also says that target needs to be within range and LoS. That means that you are breaking the rules if you try to resolve an action without declaring a target or choose a target that's not within LoS and range.

I have declared a target. An attack can "affect multiple targets", it doesn't say I need to have all my targets to declare, it actually uses the singular for declaring a target quite consistently. It could have said "the target(s) must be in range" or "all targets must..." since it just hinted at multiple targets. Seems to me like one target is required for the attack to be declared but multiple targets can be affected by it to fully resolve.

 

This is a pointless discussion I guess. We all know that we would punch anyone trying to do it in the face but the rules aren't specific enough to conclusively make it impossible in my view. I'll stop playing the devil's advocate because it's a waste of everyone's time except to highlight this wordingfor mk 3. :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I have declared a target. An attack can "affect multiple targets", it doesn't say I need to have all my targets to declare, it actually uses the singular for declaring a target quite consistently. It could have said "the target(s) must be in range" or "all targets must..." since it just hinted at multiple targets. Seems to me like one target is required for the attack to be declared but multiple targets can be affected by it to fully resolve.

 

This is a pointless discussion I guess. We all know that we would punch anyone trying to do it in the face but the rules aren't specific enough to conclusively make it impossible in my view. I'll stop playing the devil's advocate because it's a waste of everyone's time except to highlight this wordingfor mk 3. :)

Do you honestly believe "any variable" means that you only have to declare a single variable of the Action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Do you honestly believe "any variable" means that you only have to declare a single variable of the Action?

Pandora's Self harm and Self loathing actions have a variable that is that you must choose a particular type of action to resolve it: :ranged and :melee respectively. The action you choose is also a variable  of the action that must be declared and yet we have had an faq clarifying that you are allowed to take that action against a target model that doesn't have the specified type of action just to cause the duel. How is this interaction different??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Pandora's Self harm and self loathing actions have a variable that is that you must choose a particular type of action to resolve it: :ranged and :melee respectively. The action you choose is also a variable  of the action that must be declared and yet we have had an faq clarifying that you are allowed to take that action against a target model that doesn't have the specified type of action just to cause the duel. How is this interaction different??

Is it really a variable or part of resolving the Action?

Edit: Actually, the FAQ answer seems to imply quite clearly that choosing the Attack Action is part of resolving the Action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Pandora's Self harm and Self loathing actions have a variable that is that you must choose a particular type of action to resolve it: :ranged and :melee respectively. The action you choose is also a variable  of the action that must be declared and yet we have had an faq clarifying that you are allowed to take that action against a target model that doesn't have the specified type of action just to cause the duel. How is this interaction different??

You don't have to choose the action you are copying until you have finished the duels. So lets say for example you target Misaki with Self loathing. You don't need to decide if you are applying the Bisento damage track or the Thunder damage track until after the duel is complete (but before you actually flip for damage). Its not a required variable to make the action work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Myyrä said:

Is it really a variable or part of resolving the Action?

Please define the difference to me. A varible is any part of the resolution text that varies between castings I would assume, that's why iu need to declare hoq you are casting it. Summons have different Tn depending on the variable which model you will try to get. Pandora choosing which action to do seems like a variable to me just as which target you are targeting is, doesn't matter all that much if it is in the text of the action to me. If there was a subset of targeting variables always i bold lettering or something and the text said you declared all targeting variables to cast I would be agreeing with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Adran said:

You don't have to choose the action you are copying until you have finished the duels. So lets say for example you target Misaki with Self loathing. You don't need to decide if you are applying the Bisento damage track or the Thunder damage track until after the duel is complete (but before you actually flip for damage). Its not a required variable to make the action work.

 

 

Can you define the general rule that guides which of these variables I need to declare and whixh I don't? Seems to me like I need to declare which action I copy before doing the duel since it is variable and not static effect to the action. This could be imprtant to my opponent in declaring if they will declare a ss to give Pandora a neg to damage or how high they will cheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Can you define the general rule that guides which of these variables I need to declare and whixh I don't? Seems to me like I need to declare which action I copy before doing the duel since it is variable and not static effect to the action. This could be imprtant to my opponent in declaring if they will declare a ss to give Pandora a neg to damage or how high they will cheat.

There are a lot of decisions involved with resolving actions and it isn't always awfully clear which are variables and which are not. Do you have to declare the direction to which you are going to push the target model, when declaring the action? I don't know anyone who plays it like that, but that could still be up to interpretation.

However, there is no question at all whether target(s) of the action are variables you need to declare, none whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might all have been playing it in breach of the rules, doesn't make it right. The actual rulebook way of handling the austringer trigger is pretty silly so everyone I know of are breaking it, some don't even know they aren't playing by the rules.

I might be over-emphasising the lack of a plural ending. I still think both that and which variables you need to declare are good examples of wordings that could be improved upon a lot. Targeting variables should be borken out in a clearer way. It's not that,weird to parse it as the targeting only requiring the first target and pthers being optional if you want to keep resolving parts of the ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its certainly wordignt hat could be improved, your suggestion would be a prefect fix. The Variables you need to declare when you take an action are 

What is the action. What are the targets. If its a walk action does it leave an enemy engagement that I started in. There may be a couple of additional ones that exist on specific actions, that I can't think of just at the moment.  (EDIT _ Found one, when you have a choice of Rst stats, you choose that one here)

Most "variables" will occur in  the resolve action section when you do what the Action tells you to do. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what the conclusion above was and I guess there is some level of lost clarity but again this is an attack with a tn vs wp. Markers don't have a wp so how am I attacking it. Also as far as I can tell the attack has to resolve before anything in the action takes place. "If the attacker wins the duel, the effects of the duel are resolved."

Additionally assuming the marker has to be selected prior to success, nowhere in the rules does it say I must have two targets to succeed. Directly from the rule book "Attack actions require a target and LoS." As far as I can see I can attack the model since it's a legal target I don't have the other target but I don't see anywhere that I need both. Remember I am trying to burn the main effect anyway and since I don't have a target scrap marker the main  effect does nothing, but the trigger is pretty specific "after succeeding against target gremlin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information