Waldo's Weekly - The Evil Has Landed

[Jinn]

4 minutes ago, Bort said:

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".

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.

[Bort]

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.

[Jinn]

21 minutes ago, Bort said:

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.

The binary I perceived in the original scheme is whether or not a model has the highest cost (which seems to be one valid interpretation of the wording, which is a problem if it is unintended).

In my adjustment of the scheme the binary becomes whether or not two enemy models have the two highest costs. In your hypothetical the binary answer would be 'no', as you only have one of the two highest costs, even though both of your models are in that bracket.

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).

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. 

[Bort]

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.

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

@Kyle the typo in Public Enemies I have pointed out yesterday is still in the document. I have also a question related to the Corrupted Ley Lines. It seems that the Interact that lets the model move o Loadstone token from one model to another does not involve targeting either of the models, and as such cannot be prevented by the Hostile Work Enviroment Ability. Is that intentional?

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

And can we, pretty please, have back the rule that upon replacing the new model gains the highest value of every Condition on the original models instead of the sum of them? Sandeep is already one of the best masters in the game, he really, but REALLY, doesn't need to be buffed any further.

[Pallas4]

Hi

 

any idea for the date release of the cards on wargame vault?

[Ogid]

I've finally some time to check the changes now so some feedback:

First of all, I like the direction of the changes; nerfing top dogs to keep powercreep in check and increase the viable lists is a good call; I maybe miss more buffs to underwhelming models, but I guess we'll get those in future erratas. Also there are a lot rules clarified and FAQs, which means you are on the ball on the forums and care for having a good game, so kudos for that.

 

But focusing in my main faction (NVB), there are 2 things that I don't like from this errata: The Inhuman Reflexes change in NVB and the errata of basic mechanic without adjusting keywords relying on them.

1 The IR change 

This is imo a very bad call for several reasons:

The main reason is how unreliable that upgrade is, Scamper will work roughtly like butterfly jump, but eventually the other player will flip a 13/RJ or we wouldn't be able to cheat and eventually we will lose that important model we paid 2 extra SS to have more protected without the upgrade doing anything. Consistency is very important, specially in tournaments were we need to win 4 or 5 matches. Also Scamper favours either high defenses or the use of Focused/Cards in defense, NVB has very bad card draw, not that great defensive stats or to defenses, and it's not good stacking Focused in particular models neither (that without taking in count that Focused is half wasted in defense); so it's also a bad fit for the faction.

The second reason is that lack of consistency hurts more the least powerful crews in the faction; Dreamer or Pandora will feel the lack of butterfly jump, but they have either a wall of summons, a lot of Henchmans (that may try to survive those hits were the defensive tech doesn't work with SS), Terrfiying forcing cheats, more control or need more Ancient Pact for the card draw than IR. However masters that rely in that upgrade to keep squishy enforcers or minions alive are in a rought place now. Marcus and Euripides are the 2 big losers, 2 crews that are far from top tier; and Lucius also notice it, which adds to the Agent nerf (that one was fair tho)

The third reason is how the faction is: NVB is in general not very schemy, is glassy, has little ranged threat and little defensive tech (take the hit, shielded...). So NVB needs to get and edge in combat to close games and has few options to protect their key models, the IR change is a bit hit in that department both with the lack of consistency and the need to use resources in defense instead of ofense with no compensatory changes anywhere.

So, for me the ideal scenario would be having butterfly jump back, but if that has to go for good, then please change scamper for a more reliable defensive tech (better or worse, but reliable) and keep an eye in those minion/enforcer reliant keywords.

2 Basic Mechanics change

As thatlatinspeakingguy post above, Sandeep got a big buff thanks to the replace changes (a main ARC friend of mine is quite happy about it and thinking about double golem lists lol), but there are also losers, and NVB Marcus got the short end of the stick in this errata. Marcus is a fun keyword, but not very competitive in NVB; the reasons to pick it over the ARC version were 2 extra butterfly jumps model thanks to IR (which was still worse than the SS cache upgrade in ARC), the extra damage the IR give to the charges of Marcus/Myranda/Vogel and all the great NVB beasts.

Now IR is nerfed (in a keyword that rely on minions/enforcers) and also are Marcus/Myranda/Vogel charges, which is a very big hit for a keyword that wasn't doing that well. To add salt to the injury, none of the non-chimera models have Adaptive Evolution, nor get to defensive flips for myranda (to help trigger Scamper). And now that the charges aren't that powerful, cicling mutations for the card draw and suits seems more important, something that NVB beast cannot do.

So please keep an eye in those non-top notch keyword that were collaterally hitted by things like the IR nerf or some basic mechanic change.

[Jesy Blue]

On 3/5/2020 at 4:02 PM, Ming said:

Benny Wolcomb's new Rat Bomb trigger needs a rat in base contact with the target. Also rats don't engage models, the enemy would engage the rat, so there will be Friendly Fire involved. Is it correct?

Yeah... that's true.  So unless it's an enemy model without aattack, it's still friendly fire.

Not really useful.

[thatlatinspeakingguy]

16 minutes ago, Jesy Blue said:

Yeah... that's true.  So unless it's an enemy model without aattack, it's still friendly fire.

Not really useful.

I missed that. Now Benny seems much less appealing to me. I have a feeling that they have overlooked it as well and the gun action should say "ignore malifaux rats for friendly fire purposes" or something similar.

[StefMcGlen]

So gone to print off the updated rulebook and any page that has a character image (e.g the nightmare on page 3) on it prints in a black box that covers over everything else, anyone know how to stop this as have tried all different things I can think of and its still doing the same.  I believe its to do with the image being a separate piece to the page, its dead frustrating

[farmoar]

trying to print the new cards to use for games, but my printer doesnt like the dropbox format. Does anyone know what the proper settings should be, to get them to print out at the correct size? Specifically looking for the Resurrectionists and Guild cards. thanks!

[katadder]

On 3/9/2020 at 9:34 PM, farmoar said:

trying to print the new cards to use for games, but my printer doesnt like the dropbox format. Does anyone know what the proper settings should be, to get them to print out at the correct size? Specifically looking for the Resurrectionists and Guild cards. thanks!

Download the pdfs then print 4 pages per page on a4, this seems to give the right size cards

[Toqtamish]

3 x 3 on letter prints them at same size for sleeving.