fishtank Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 playing 2nd ever game with Hoffman. Wanted to "socially repressed" Ryle away from his brother...but as Hoff is a Construct he can't, as constructs aren't living. Is Hoffman really "dead"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 magicpockets Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 We've noticed this too, decided it was a case of "rules is rules" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Requirement Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Same. I noticed the other day while using Ryle as a ride that he couldn't get away from Hoffman of his own power... Is Hoffman really "dead"? I agree it's odd that Hoffman wouldn't have the same statement on his card that Ryle has making him both a Construct and Living model... I get the Construct part, there's an apparatus on his back.... but there is also the person part of the model... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 SpiralngCadavr Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) Ramos is another construct/living, and so is his executioner and Joss, and all are pretty clearly not dead. Personally, I think that Perfect Machine should have been worded that you can choose to use the construct rule, rather than you can choose not to. Fluff? They're brothers. It's the spark of memory that Ryle still has, that gives Hoffman hope. Or something. Edited April 8, 2012 by SpiralngCadavr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kadeton Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Exactly. He might be socially repressed, but he knows his brother and doesn't recoil from him. It's one of those neat "rules support fluff, but in a roundabout way" interactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Issalbotproto Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Dont try to apply too much logic to a rule, if you were to do that there would be no magic in the game at all. (I dare you to logically explain a portal that leads to another world where teddy bears eat people and there are half angels running around killing all the humans while people are raising the dead) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 ZiggyQubert Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Dont try to apply too much logic to a rule, if you were to do that there would be no magic in the game at all. (I dare you to logically explain a portal that leads to another world where teddy bears eat people and there are half angels running around killing all the humans while people are raising the dead) Well thats an easy one to explain, its FM (Freakin Magic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 SpiralngCadavr Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Dont try to apply too much logic to a rule, if you were to do that there would be no magic in the game at all. (I dare you to logically explain a portal that leads to another world where teddy bears eat people and there are half angels running around killing all the humans while people are raising the dead) I believe that (for example) you don't need to explain the existence of undead, but you do need to make them consistent. The American Astronaut is one of my favorite movies, and it has an amazingly well-developed world, not because it logically makes sense (it doesn't), but because the internal logic is, I dare say, perfect. Things don't need to make sense, as long as they're consistent, at least, in my opinion. Though, there is also something to be said for realism of basic natural phenomena when dealing with Earth-like circumstances. For instance, regardless of magic, if ice sank in Malifaux and they didn't bother explaining it or making a point of it, I'd be skeptical of their writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 nerdelemental Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 This one is on our radar. However, it's not nearly important enough to put it at the forefront of the "Revision" list. For now, it's simply a rules is rules issue where the fluff/reality logic simply needs to take a back seat to the game functionality. In essence, there's enough of Hoff to be considered a Construct and construct-specific rules need to interact with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Cadilon Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Only just realised: this can't be right surely? Yes, it appears it is. And don't call me Shirley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 fishtank Posted April 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I don't think it needs any sort of change TBH. It's not game breaking in the slightest. I think I came up with the "Can't be repulsed from his BROTHER" argument too. All is good. Look at making "Does not die" make sense instead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 SpiralngCadavr Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I don't think it needs any sort of change TBH. It's not game breaking in the slightest. I think I came up with the "Can't be repulsed from his BROTHER" argument too. Yeah, I actually didn't think it was that strange. Of all of the Malifaux things that could be confusing, this one hardly warrants an eventual new card, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Requirement Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Look at making "Does not die" make sense instead... It just doesn't die. Ever. How confusing is that? *grin* If anything it's super underpowered. I agree though, I don't think that there needs to be much of any change to the way Hoff/Ryle interact. It doesn't really break anything and Hoff being only a construct doesn't seem to do much bad other than keeping Ryle from pushing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 BlueStar86 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yes, it appears it is. And don't call me Shirley. I don't mean to be rude, but you are the one who responded to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 dragons_lair04 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I think some people might be too young to get the joke :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Vargas79 Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I might have to be Frank with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Sliver Chocobo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 playing 2nd ever game with Hoffman. Wanted to "socially repressed" Ryle away from his brother...but as Hoff is a Construct he can't, as constructs aren't living. Is Hoffman really "dead"? He's not dead, but he's not living as in traditional sense ether, more like cyberman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
fishtank
playing 2nd ever game with Hoffman. Wanted to "socially repressed" Ryle away from his brother...but as Hoff is a Construct he can't, as constructs aren't living.
Is Hoffman really "dead"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
16 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.