Welcome to Wyrd Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Thimblesage

Members
  • Content count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Thimblesage

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Burbank, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

541 profile views
  1. As it turns out both have the "which does not list a model by name" stipulation. So I think the major differences are: Doppleganger- Action, non-leader, Rg:8", Needs a 7, Any (1) Action, with a trigger can have 3X actions/4 with fast Changeling- Ability, any model, 3", Automatically happens, Only Attack actions, only 2 actions/3 with fast Other small points, since Doppleganger's mimic is a (0) she is at risk of BJ flips. Also, if she she is locked into a single action opposed to the changeling which can spend its AP on different actions from the same, or different models. (0) Mimic (Ca 8 / TN: 15 / Rg: 8): Select a (1) Action printed on target non-Leader model's stat card or Upgrades that does not list a model by name. For the remainder of this Activation, this model may take the selected Action as if it were printed on this model's card. Actions taken in this way may not declare Triggers. Mt Perfect Blend: After succeeding, immediately take the selected Action. Copycat: This model may take (1) Attack Actions printed on any model or Upgrade within 3 which does not list a model by name. These Actions may not declare Triggers and the stat (Ml, Sh, Ca, etc.) is considered to be 4 (no suits).
  2. I suppose that Queeg or Watcher could always just lay a scheme marker but depending on the situation I often find Queeg's "Welcome to Hell...." extremely useful for the entire turn. I often set up my second turn with a minion that doesn't have a 0 action placing a scheme marker in base contact with Nellie after she's moved; setting her up for another push the following turn. also, even if you'd get a free scheme marker with Nellie's unspent evidence, I still do it when things like search the ruins or dig their graves is in the pool. (or any other scheme marker scheme)
  3. So I almost always take a Watcher in my Nellie crew to get a bunch of evidence. love this model because its a minion with flight for 4 SS, all rare attributes in Guild but extremity useful for the evidence. Anyway, a fun combo I often utilize on my first turn is deploy Watcher and Nellie within 1", then take a walk action with Queeg ending within 6" If I've taken and passed his "Welcome to Hell and I am your Devil", then his "Put the fear in them" lets watcher place a scheme marker in base contact with Nellie as a 0 action if the Watcher passes the TN:12 which rockets Nellie up-field 6" if she uses her only 0 action.
  4. THANKS! this is great advice with both general strategy and specific examples, precisely what I was hoping for and very helpful.
  5. I should probably post this question in a new thread but the general consensus of Nellie's Propaganda attack is that she cannot push a target 5" with the Guilt trigger and then take a free swing with the Angry Mob trigger in the same activation correct? This is because even though you can declare multiple triggers, the angry mob trigger reads, "After Succeeding....within 2" so if you push a target an amount of inches up to 5, unless it was within 2" after succeeding this trigger cannot be taken. am I wrong? Angry Mob: After succeeding, choose another friendly model within 2"of the target to make a (1) y Attack against the target, if able.
  6. So I was wondering if Nellie is any good with Death Marshals + Recruiters? Now that Dade is out I was wondering if there are any synergy between Marshals and Guardsman? Or, are there any fun synergies that might work well with Nellie and Marshals? Would love to hear your thoughts. So Phiona with her Ch:8 works with mounted guards cavalry charge. Also if Cap. Dash takes his Guild Guard summoning upgrade than Phiona might get some fun interactions with her "Look Out" Sadly Guild Marshals, (Death and Recruiters) are not Guardsman so Dade doesn't get her buff from them. But are there other more clever combo's out there that are not intuitive? Would love to hear your ideas.
  7. Good question, for the most part this is resolved by the common predicate, "...that does not list a model by name." So regardless of where the action 'is' most if not all copy-like actions have this stipulation. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a copy-like action that allows you to copy a model's action that has a listed name.
  8. Thanks, Adran. I almost wish I could see a history of the changes. Would be fun to see the evaluation plus it would be great to get a notification of old FAQ's that get changed
  9. Any chance you could update this AMAZING post with wave 4 models?
  10. So I was wondering about Master Queeg's ability, "Put the Fear In 'em" So This effectively also reads "A friendly model may only be the target of this ability once per turn" and here's why. According to the horror duel rules, "A model that passes a Horror Duel~~the model is considered immune to Horror Duels from the model that generated the Horror Duel until the End Phase of the Turn" So any model immune to the cannot take the check. So models cannot even use this if they are inherently immune to Horror duels. for a good listing of models that can utilize Queegs ability check this post out: So here's my question. There are a few models out there that that are immune to Horror duels. However, Witchling Thralls are unique in Guild in that they are not immune but rather they have an ability "Beyond Terror, Beyond Pain:" Is this written specifically because of Queeg's ability? Does this mean that Thralls can take multiple Horror Duels? If So, how is this justified? if not, what was the purpose of this ability's wording?
  11. Thanks for the Clarification!
  12. So there's probably a simple explanation that I am missing but don't these two FAQ's contradict each other? I would love some help with this one, thanks.
  13. So I found myself quoting old errata and was corrected last night during a game? I seem to remember reading a FAQ that clarified engagement range after a model gained paralyze. I could bet money that it read, "if a model gains the paralyzed condition then its engagement range is reduced to '0'. ~~~if the model is in base to base contact with an enemy model then it would still provoke a disengaging strike." So I can't find this anywhere in the FAQ or Errata. Has it been re-re-errata'ed? The only thing I found was an errata on Pg. 52: This seems to contradict the FAQ that disappeared, did this happen or am I just remembering?
  14. Well, so much of this game's VP are scored and denied via engagement. all of the interact schemes, can easily be denied. even the non-interact schemes like interference can be denied by engagement quite easily. So being able to smack a model and them not smacking back is always nice but there's a lot of other perks to engagement. So any model that gains conditions that wouldn't allow it to attack these models are still engage and would provoke a disengaging strike. Engagement range isn't based on the ability to attack, but the range of the close attack.
  15. I actually remembered this in our game. but for argument sake, if the Watcher were instead a Insidious Madness in base contact to the enemy model with a 2" engagement range than it could "drift" (take a walk action) from the enclosed building roof (Ht:5) to a point directly below on the 2nd floor of the building (Ht:3) and still stay within the enemy models 2" engagement. This would adhere to the Enclosed rules, elevation difference rules, but it doesn't completely wrap up the "if a model wishes" bit. Up until FAQ 42 it was almost easier. If a model intended to leave engagement, then it provoked a disengaging strike. Now, with the wording of FAQ 42 it is tricky because players have to argue the ambiguity of intent. I would side with Ludvig and think it easy to argue that if you drift through floors then your intent is to break engagement. But where do you draw the line? The FAQ permits players to circumvent disengaging strikes through breaking LoS, also permitting players to do so with the intention of disengagement.