McNathanson

Yeah let's not worry about stairs for now... how do you manage a 50mm model standing on a 30mm crate?  Do you just use the center of the base to determine where the model is, and ignore the rest?  If the crate is ht3, does he fall if his center is pushed off the edge?  

What about two 30mm models on a 50mm cylinder/barrel?  They can't both have their centers on it, but they can have a lot of their base on it and both be touching each other per the FAQ... can they be in base-to-base?

Not trying to be a pain, but this stuff always comes up!  Already has, lots of times, in our games :)

Hey folks,

We keep running into clunky issues where a base won't fit entirely on one elevation or another.  After looking at a wide variety of scenarios, and considering the implications (especially regarding base-to-base contact) we are leaning toward counting a model as being "on" more than one height of terrain at a time, so long as the difference is no more than ht1.  So for example a model climbing stairs is placed on a ht2 stair tread, with its base overhanging onto a ht1 tread.  The center of the base is on the ht2 tread.  In this case, we are counting the model as being "at" ht2 (meaning e.g. if it is a ht2 model, then its total ht is ht4).  But we are also considering its part of the base hanging off to be on the ht1 tread, so that a model on the ht1 tread can still count as base-to-base, LoS can be drawn to the part of its base on the ht1 tread, etc.

The alternatives are also imperfect (and so far, we think, worse) for a variety of reasons I don't want to go into because of time... but if you have encountered similar clunkiness, what do YOU do (especially looking at you Mach5!)  Consider stuff like a 30mm square crate with a 50mm model standing on it.  Or a 40mm wide ramp and a 50mm model wanting to climb it.  Or a 40mm wide ramp and a model wanting to push onto it from a slight angle.  Etc.

Thanks,
Nathan

I haven't tried this one (I read about it in the Episode 21 notes from Schemes and Stones podcast) and I gather that it's still under development, but it's web-based so any device should be able to access it:

http://bythetree.net/

There's a discussion/bug reporting page for the crew creator here:

http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/111915-crew-creator/?page=1

A small handful of the models are admittedly pretty gross but I don't play those models.  Most of the dark aspect of the game is humorous!

There is game called Infinity............

Here's me wishing you had leaped to Malifaux instead... any chance you'll pick it up after Infinity, or along side it?

Doh!

 

Pretty bad misread :) thanks for catching that, bro! Much better.

That's only about 75 more I owe you :)

RAW, I think this is wrong. When both models are on vantage points, then vantage point rules are ignored.

 

But that's clunky as crap. If I put a ht 2 tower up on a ht 2 hill (happens a lot on the Vassal maps), then technically, a dude on the tower does NOT use the vantage point rules when drawing LOS to a dude down below on the hill! 

I'm pretty sure that you misread; the vantage points are only ignored if they are the same height:

"If the acting model and the target model are both on vantage point terrain with the same Height, LoS is drawn normally." - M2E p.42

No worries, I'm sure you guys will be a force to be reckoned with by the time we see you next! :)

Don't get your hopes too high, there are a LOT of factions and masters we don't have in our lunch-hour mix and from what I can tell, the first few times you play a master or even a really good model, it's a pretty good chance you're going to get blindsided :)

That said I'm totally looking forward to playing with you guys this year!  I wonder if we can do the tournament Friday and then just play pickup 'faux Sat and Sun?? :)

You can edit it. Edit the first post, then hit the "full editor" and then you can edit the title.

Praise the Lord!  Or the Pax!  Thank you :)

Yes sorry of course cheating to lose is an option if you have a lower card than what the Marshalllll flips.

All good except for one thing: I know you "always round up" in Mollyfox, but the terrain rules specifically say that terrain needs to be a full inch in order to get the ht point.  So .9" would be ht0, 1.0 - 1.999... would be ht1, etc.  This seems pretty specific in the rulebook; do you guys use a different house rule for terrain ht and round up?

PS: I agree it's totally fine to discuss beforehand and agree on whatever you want to.  We use walls that are about .8" tall and count them as ht1, for example.

Another thing that's seeming a little clunky/counterintuitive: if Model A (ht2) is on ht4 tower, and Model B (also ht2) is on ht3 crate, the vantage point rules do apply, because both models are on ht2+ terrain, but the two vantage points are not the same height, correct?  So, intervening terrain of equal to or lower than the target Model B is ignored.  So what is Model B's height for this calculation, 2, or 5?  If it's 2, LoS can be blocked by a ht3 building between the two if it's closer to Model B than it is to Model A, which looks wrong from an intuitive standpoint (it doesn't appear to be in the way at all).  And of course if we use ht5, then ht5 terrain between the two is ignored, which looks even worse.  So I'm left to think that we count Model B as ht2, ignore ht1/ht2 terrain, and use the "passing above the base at a point..." rules for ht3 terrain.

Is this right?  

I hate how I can't edit the post title... that misspelled "Marshal" is driving me nuts!  What is he, a guitar amp?! :)

So far I gather that the Marshal can auto-box a friendly (friendly "defender" just relents the opposed duel), but I don't see any simple way to unbox after that. The Marshal can't relent his start-of-activation duel, as (AFAIK) the Marshal is the "acting" model and therefore not the defender, so can't relent.  Also he can't take the Pine Box action again (AFAIK) without a valid target.  And of course he can't Pine Box himself as it's an attack action (which would need to specify that he can target himself).  This leaves him with either Boxing another friendly or boxing an opponent's model, both of which require getting with 1" of the target model.

This may all be just stating the obvious but I wanted to make sure there isn't an easier way/trick I'm missing to get (e.g.) Papa Loco outta dat Box!

Ah, thanks Mark!

Pax I completely agree, SO much better to make the model itself not meaningful gameplay wise!  A very nice freedom to have!

One other point, you mention using the Malifaux Raptor's Enraged trigger to make your own models into Beasts, and talk about the low Df of your own models, and waiting to apply Metal Gamin's Metal Protection until after applying Blind Rage.  

However the defender can always choose to "relent" an opposed duel, and then the (rather than flipping) the defender automatically ties the attacker (with no suit on the Df).  This results in a [-][-] to the damage flip, so the only risk is flipping a Black Joker and dealing no damage and thereby missing the Enraged trigger, or flipping Red Joker and dealing 6 damage (oops!).  If this is a concern, you can instead cheat in a card low enough to cause the defender to lose by 6-10, which gives an even flip and minimizes the odds of accidentally flipping a Joker for damage.  I do this all the time with my Sonnia crew to get around high Defense, or cover, or apply burning to my own models, or a myriad other things.  It's a good thing to keep in mind!

Well Gencon is probably not a realistic thing for me anyway given new baby and stuff... so I'll go with it :)

So as I've chosen Guild, the one crew that I do want to play but don't like some of the models is C. Hoffman's team.  He's great, but the Guardian, Watchers and even a few others (like Metal Gamin and Rail Golem, tho they are much better than the aforementioned Guild construct models) just aren't my cup o' tea artistically.

Here's a plan for making this crew work for me model-wise:

1) Replace Watchers with these Warmachine "clockwork angels":

http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/convergence-of-cyriss/units/clockwork-angels

2) Replace Guardians with Warmachine "reciprocators":

http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/convergence-of-cyriss/units/reciprocators

3) Gamins become "obstructors": http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/convergence-of-cyriss/units/obstructors

4) Rail Golem is one of many of the amazing Warjacks.

I like the existing Wyrd Peacekeeper but in an effort to stick with the same clockwork look and feel I might find a 'jack for that too.

I'd probably stick with the Wyrd arachnid swarms, which artistically match the above-linked Warmachine guys anyway.

I dunno, thoughts?  Confusing or awesome?  Am I likely to be disallowed in a tournament (e.g. not OFCC but maybe Guardian Games or Gencon or ???)

Thanks!
Nathan

No the only things in our games so far that seem a little "whaaaaaaaaat?" are (IMO) Lilith, Sonnia, and possibly that Mechanical Rider but we shall see.  The Dec Acolytes, Guild Austringers, and maybe the Dobblebopper also stand out as ridiculously good but at ~6 pts they can't do enough to dominate a game by themselves.

I was wondering about that!  Well the little ones always have the most fighting spirit anyway :)

FWIW I think all it takes to make AoS into a big hit at OFCC is for a few motivated individuals with some organizational skills and follow through (it's a fair amount of work!) to make it happen.  Decide on a balancing system (e.g. Scrollbuilder or Ordo Comp or whatever), figure out a "points size", build a simple but effective errata set to fix the main issues.  Document this all neatly, get it approved by the Ordo Senate, and publish it to Ordo as quickly as possible, so that people who want to participate have plenty of time.

Nathanvoodoo, I'd say if you have the motivation, recruit a few people to help, and make it happen for OFCC 2016!  I know if there were an AoS event that didn't conflict with Malifaux, I'd be very tempted to get going on converting an army to AoS!

Build it and they will come!!

Gotta say the round bases are pretty tempting for my elite armies (read: fewer models!).  I'm thinking of putting one army on them for AoS, and then leaving my other (e.g. Bret Peasant Hordes) on square for KoW.  Oh, decisions!!

"play what you want. And no special characters. Or this. Or that. Whats yer comp score?"

It was the quickest way to weed out players whose idea of "what I want to play" was so far from the organizers that we didn't want them coming.  I know some people find smashing face with a giant 1000 pt SC to be fun, and that's fine.  And other players hate comp, because they like to win based on exploiting bad game design, and that's fine too.  But the people who started OFCC were just trying to find a way to bring like-minded players together for a weekend of gaming (players who like close games that aren't won or lost before deployment, and come down to generalship and a few lucky dice roles).  So yeah, OFCC was not for everyone, and was never meant to be!

At least from a Guild perspective, I think the 3Wd Dove (full health) is hardly any more difficult to drop than the 1Wd Dove, while the Gamin being in better position quickly after summoning is much more problematic.  The only time I can imagine having APs to spend shooting Doves is before the engagement has really begun, e.g. Turn 1, or with a model who is out of position to do anything truly useful.  I think you're probably winning already if someone is shooting down a 1 Wd dove that's presumably in cover, while there are Dec Acolytes and Performers and Cass and Mechanical Rider running around (oh my gosh what an awesome set of cards those are...)  I think it's a perfect use of the Dove: improve your Gamin's position, burn an Activation (for a crew that really wants to go last so they can flurry and not suffer the reprisal), and still have a good way to sac out to boost one of your bigger models.  That's just me though :)