lille354

Got to say as a fairly new player this happened to me in a game, I only had 1 card when I killed her - it never entered my head not to discard that one card and I feel it is a bit of a stretch to claim you don't have to? Obviously that is just my opinion and more experienced players than me will have better input. Although I have to say I wouldn't feel too keen to play someone again who interpreted it that they didn't have to get rid of a card in these circumstances.

I find she works well with Molly, like everything it depends on the schemes and strategies you choose. She adds a bit of firepower and her ability to move things away from scheme markers has occasionally tipped games my way. With Molly quite often I taken Sybelle, but I have found a use for Anna if I don't need to actually kill everything in front of me.

I meant that opinions vary - if everyone agrees a character is useless, then they probably are?

Lots of discussion about Seamus on this thread and the one about the Voodoo doll? Obviously people feel differently about his strengths and weaknesses, which is what makes the game work so well IMHO. I am quite new to the game and haven't used him yet so have nothing to bring to the discussion on that front. Although I do feel Molly is much under rated on this thread, for having the best surname in the game if nothing else!

I was going to grab Kirai box next to start me down the spirit path, so to speak, but Yan Lo may be a better choice? The Kirai set seems to have a bit more in that Molly can utilise

I am going to add some spirits but at the moment I have Molly and Nicodem so am a bit more Horror heavy

Hail fellow necromancers! I am having a spot of bother dealing with the Swamp Hag and her voodoo doll. In 3 games against her I have lost the Valedictorian (turn 1) (burning +4), Philip and the nanny (turn 2) and Anna Lovelace (Turn 1) - different games obviously. Mainly to the doll being set on fire and passing on the condition on. Any top tips would be most welcome. Generally at the moment I am running a horror Molly crew, so I don't have much by the way of spirits (hanged and drowned mainly).

What they really hate is now needing a 5 to get Lure to work and having 1 less wound!!

Thanks

Hi, Can someone let me know where this card can be found? It seems to be a really useful card for Ressers, but I don't know where it originates!

Thanks for the advice, I don't have the Reva boxed set yet but I can always substitute Vincent for another hitter!

Thanks La Belle Mort, I hadn't actually thought of that - and I have found you can block Taelor's charge/LOS reasonably easily. We were only playing 35SS games whilst we got the hang of the rules, in a 50SS game you can put plenty of stuff in her way - and Bete Noir has dealt with her fairly well in the last couple of games, at least to the point where she has to decide if charging and splatting the crooligan you just summoned is worth having Bete Noir appear in front of you and go haywire. Of course having spent around £200 on models and 6 weeks painting them, summoning is just too tempting! I have another 2 masters to try out, Nicodem and McMourning, but I am enjoying using Molly - her learning curve is just a little steep.

The general consensus at my club amongst the more experienced players was that the within 1" does apply as that is the rule for soft cover. Not saying this is the definitive answer but it worked for us. Thank you to you all for you input, this forum is a gem!

Well at least I don't feel dumb for raising this now! The problem is really with the woolly description for terrain/cover in the rules? In this instance the card clearly does not say it creates an area of terrain with the soft cover trait within the aura, just that the area within the aura provides soft cover. The description in the rules for cover only refer to it in relation to terrain. So being pedantically literal if the area is not terrain it cannot provide soft cover, but we agree that it does not say it is terrain! If the Ht was not relevant then why bother to include it? A figure up to HT3 within the 4" aura clearly gets the soft cover protection, and one of the traits of soft cover is that any figure within 1" of it gets the same negative bonus. This could be interpreted that a figure 1" from the aura does get the bonus as it is a defining part of soft cover, but it only applies to LOS drawn through terrain - which is not explicitly a given. Of course this leads to the daft position of a figure further away than that being shot through the same aura and not getting the defence bonus, because it is more than 1" away? I think agreement with opponent is required?

Well at least I don't feel dumb for raising this now! The problem is really with the woolly description for terrain/cover in the rules? In this instance the card clearly does not say it creates an area of terrain with the soft cover trait within the aura, just that the area within the aura provides soft cover. The description in the rules for cover only refer to it in relation to terrain. So being pedantically literal if the area is not terrain it cannot provide soft cover, but we agree that it does not say it is terrain! If the Ht was not relevant then why bother to include it? A figure up to HT3 within the 4" aura clearly gets the soft cover protection, and one of the traits of soft cover is that any figure within 1" of it gets the same negative bonus. This could be interpreted that a figure 1" from the aura does get the bonus as it is a defining part of soft cover, but it only applies to LOS drawn through terrain - which is not explicitly a given. Of course this leads to the daft position of a figure further away than that being shot through the same aura and not getting the defence bonus, because it is more than 1" away? I think agreement with opponent is required?