Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Why I take Misf3 - it takes the sting out of Baleful Star. :doh:

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Keep in mind that luck does not affect ALL events. Events are tied into many things and luck can be part of an equation for that event, or not. If an event is tied ONLY to your magic scales, or terrain, or dominion strength then luck wont affect it whether its good or bad.

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Order3 Misf2 is the most common choice for a reason. Misf3 can get a bit risky, as it unlocks some not cool events. But some nations with good early game can go with it.

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Just to avoid confusion:
Luck scale does affect the chance of getting a good event or a bad event.

After the karma of the event has been determined, Misfortune won't prevent (most) good events from happening and Luck won't prevent (most) bad events from happening, just like Growth can bring immigrants or cause an Ancient Presence to destroy a province and kill most of its population, just as Death can cause a rich prince to die (and you to get his money) or cause a plague.

Furthermore, there are multiple versions of some events. I understand that out of the two otherwise identical plague events, one is Rare and has no scale requirements, other is Common and requires high Death scale. I hope that some of the better events are more common with high Luck.

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

While I appreciate the long-term advantages of Order 3 / Misf 2 and have used it in a number of games, the main issue I have with Misf is it can be devastating right out of the gates. Events like lab burning down, temple destruction, or losing a chunk of capital population mean it is a gamble that can really slow you down or even wipe you out in the early game. It seems like a huge gamble with your nation that you might not take if you were a real-life leader in a true struggle for survival, but one that players in MP take all the time since they can just start over in another MP game if the one they are in goes poorly.

The flipside of the coin (most likely if you take Luck scales) is having a huge income event early on can be a positive game changer since you can build a new fort immediately, which can snowball into a nice lead in expansion and research. In CB games, I have found Order and Luck to be a viable and potent combination. While they do not synergize as well, the combination of steady income, with bonus income/gems/heroes is nice. Obviously its point intensive and involves some big tradeoffs.

One thing I think I have confirmed though is I will never play Turmoil/Luck again, even as Pan. Sucks to be poor.

Oh, and one other thing learned from KM, high luck can be useful to have a source of income not dependent on provinces. When you get mass surprise raided and have to hole up in forts, luck income can keep you going. Or when a world-breaker starts spamming armageddon, wiping out population, or utterdark, luck income is suddenly quite helpful to buy you time to deal with the offenders.

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

My current flavor is MA Ashdod. Other favorites are are LA Agartha, EA C'tis, EA Ermor, the old version of Helheim (pre-Svartalf nerf), and EA Marverni. (You can see that I'm strongly attracted to recruitable-anywhere mages, especially with Death magic.) MA Shinuyama would have been next but I'm not bored with Ashdod yet.

-Max

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Ironic addendum: this turn, random events included two knight attacks... on the same province.

-Max

Re: Why I Always Take Misfortune-3
 

Nevertheless, now your point of view gets quite understandable... ;)