lame0

I would like to be on the waiting list. I'm interested in coming from NYC.

You do understand that a model doesn’t physically fit in a place when there is no space at all for it to be placed. Think about it. Not having a location to place doesn’t mean it’s invalid just that it doesn’t have anywhere on the table to place. The rule is super specific. The question the rule asks is if it fits on the table using the rules notated on its card. If not put it in deployment. There is no condition in the action that notes it does not return based on the unbury rule. It’s one thing or the other there is no third option. It’s an x or y question. If it fits on the specific location notated on its card refer to its own rule otherwise place it in the deployment zone. The unbury rule doesn’t say it cares why It can’t physically be placed and not having any place at all is an acceptable reason not to be able to physically fit. Can I physically stand if there is nowhere to stand? No. Same goes for if I can physically place a model and there in nowhere to place. I see no difference between a bayou that is surrounded by enemies or not having a bayou. In both cases zipp doesn’t fit on the table because it has no legal specific location to fit on the table using his own rule. Then you have to refer back to the unbury rule because there is nowhere for him to fit. Additionally It doesn’t say on zipps card a bayou needs to be in play for him to come back. Just that if he does come back in base contact with a bayou you have to sacrifice it.

I mean nowhere does it say you need a bayou gremlin. It just tells you where you can unbury. Rules of games are super literal. It’s like killjoy. If one of your models dies and he can’t be placed in base contact because there isn’t room then he can be unburied in deployment because the unbury effect attempts to unbury then he can’t physically be placed so then you refer back to the unbury rule. Another example is the sion of black blood and it also allows you to attempt an unbury and similarly it puts the model in base contact.....so if it can’t fit then it goes to deployment. All of the effects are worded the same way in that is says the model is placed in base contact with something and that’s all that they use to define where the models can be placed. In each of the circumstances if you can not fit when the unbury action or ability resolves then you refer back to the main unbury rule. For reference: sion of blood action “select a buried friendly henchman or minion and unbury it in base contact.” Kill joy blood sacrifice “when a model in this crew is killed or sacrificed, this model may unbury in base contact with the model before it is removed.” Zipp dread pirate zipp “at the end of the turn, unbury this model in base contact with a friendly bayou gremlin.” Like I said above they all tell you the location (in base contact with a specific model.), they all attempt to unbury, and they all fall back onto the unbury rule if they can’t unbury into the stated location on the battlefield. It would be one thing if zipp was the only model that its location for being unburied was in base contact with something but since many models unbury in the same way and all use the same rules it gets much clearer that the rule is defining the models specified unbury location. This rule is black or white @Ludvigsince you can either fit or not fit on the battlefield in the specified location when you unbury then one or the other thing happens. But regardless you unbury. I will say thematically I always thought it was a trick and he gave all the bayous a teleporter to swap places with him at his ship. This would just reflect him jumping off his ship upset that his 800 point plan failed and that he has to huff it to get back into the action.

So I tried searching (I tend to be bad at that) and I wanted to know what happens to zipp if all the bayous die before the end of the turn. Does he place in the deployment zone? I was listening to the arcane reservoir podcast and it seemed unclear at the ITC of all things. (I think it was ruled that he does unbury in deployment based on what was shared on the podcast.) the rule is as follows: Unbury Some effects will unbury a model. This is usually described in the Action that initially buried the model. When this happens, place the model back into play as described in the unburying effect. When unburying models, if the models do not physically fit in the specified location, they are placed in their controller’s Deployment Zone by the player who controls them. If models from multiple players were all unburied at the same time, the First Player (see pg. 31) places her models first. So if there are no bayous at end of turn The model doesn’t physically fit in the location because the location specified on the ability is smaller than his base (no location next to a bayou gremlin to unbury). This portion of the ability goes off at end of turn and is an attempt to unbury a model. Additionally the dread pirate zipps effect does not make you select a bayou gremlin as a target or model it just defines the specific locations where you can unbury “unbury this model in base contact with a friendly bayou gremlin.” The sacrifice effect is not a cost of unburying just a side effect of what happens if he unburied in base contact of a bayou gremlin. all this is different that Levi since the ability that attempts to unbury Levi requires the waif to be on the battlefield at end of turn to go off which differs from zipps unbury which is tied to an action taken earlier in the turn. So the test I’m seeing from this combination of rules is. If there is at least 30mm of space to summon Zipp in base contact of a bayou gremlin summon Zipp somewhere in that specified location. If there is not 30mm of space in base contact of a bayou gremlin summon Zipp into your deployment zone since it does not physically fit in the specified location stated on the actions effect. The only thing the rules and actions check for is if he fits where the unbury effect states. So I think it’s pretty clear he does unbury in the deployment zone given the above reasoning. What do you guys think?

I mean looks interesting. I’ve never been able to get show off to work for me but if it works that’s cool. With Somer I’d probs want a lightning bug cus it’s better at healing t1 and gives a little more punch to your list. Also if you really want to spam take a taxidermist. Without changing the core of the list: Declared Faction: Gremlins Crew Name: 50ss Leader: Somer Teeth Jones - Cache:(4) Family Tree 2ss Do Over 1ss Encouragement 2ss (you could put show off back if it works) Skeeter 2ss Skeeter 2ss Gremlin Taxidermist 7ss Dirty Cheater 1ss The Sow 8ss Slop Hauler 5ss Lightning Bug 5ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss Banjonista 5ss i really like getting use out of the models you bring to make more models t1. Somer makes 3x bayous. Make one encouragement punch Somer to move somer around and have the bayou take one damage. Focus punch with the skeeters to kill the 3 damaged bayou with a skeeter and use it’s trigger And make a skeeter, draw 3 cards and get a corpse marker. Use the taxidermist and make a stuffed pig and that’s it. That leaves you with 15 models to control the board often the taxidermist makes 1-2 more after that and the sow can potentially make a few piggy so your numbers probably won’t dwindle to much. The stuffed piggys also let you play your blow up game so that’s nice :D. whatever you do have fun with it!!

He’s a cool model but just suffers from other models doing specific things better while he covers more bases. Menacing croak is cool but trixie has her gremlin lure with+10 inch range. Fingers is better at stopping schemes because he prevents all types of interacts with chatty. He really is special when the enemy needs scheme markers but you can’t be sure with gg18 so he just kinda feels suboptimal. It doesn’t help that he usually needs 1-2 upgrades so being 10+ ss is pretty rough on the crew.

Whoops........................... Its a shame that I dont like any of the new models now. I guess zipp can make one but its not great.

Been a while since I’ve posted here but I was wondering what people thought of a core of: Declared Faction: Gremlins Crew Name: Gremlins # 10 50ss Leader: Zipp - Cache:(4) Rambling Diatribe 1ss Malifaux Child 2 ss Trixiebelle 8ss Do Over 1ss Cooper Jones 8ss Total 21ss I think it’s kind of interesting and probably the only set up I might consider running cooper jones. Basically it fits in because on T1 Zipp and the malifaux child can target a low wp friendly model with Rambling diatribe and can make two scrap. (Zipp can still do w.e he wants with his ap). Not only does this make the two scrap markers you need but it also lets you filter your hand quite well. Trixie gives cooper a ton of poison (should be easy enough to get 4+). Then cooper should be able to summon two gamin without issue. Which leaves you with 2 extra models by using a bunch of (0) actions 1 ap from the malifaux child and coopers activation. I like the the malifaux child since after turn one it can always choose to filter cards + make scrap to make a replacement gamin or use grab a rope to move the rest of the crew around. Overal I like the core since really it doesn’t require me to take subpar models while giving zipp access to summoning which was usually something he couldn’t pull off. Even cooper shines once you have two extra minions and is a solid resilient model (usually armor 2) with ok damage. A full list I was thinking about was: Declared Faction: Gremlins Crew Name: Gremlins # 10 50ss Leader: Zipp - Cache:(4) The Gift Of Gab 1ss Stilts 1ss Rambling Diatribe 1ss Malifaux Child 2ss Trixiebelle 8ss Dirty Cheater 1ss Do Over 1ss Burt Jebsen 8ss Dirty Cheater 1ss Pere Ravage 6ss Cooper Jones 8ss Iron Skeeter 6ss Hovering Airship 0ss Slop Hauler 5ss or a dread pirate zipp list of: Declared Faction: Gremlins Crew Name: Gremlins # 10 50ss Leader: Zipp - Cache:(4) The Gift Of Gab 1ss (maybe swap for dirty cheater) Rambling Diatribe 1ss The Dread Pirate Zipp 1ss Malifaux Child 2ss Trixiebelle 8ss Dirty Cheater 1ss Do Over 1ss Pere Ravage 6ss Cooper Jones 8ss Iron Skeeter 6ss Hovering Airship 1ss Slop Hauler 5ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss Bayou Gremlin 3ss With dread pirate depending on the board state of t1 you can diatribe or turn zipp into a bayou so it’s flexible and you can always make the second gamin turn two since your poison will carry over anyway. I do find it funny that brewmaster seems to be pretty bad for cooper since the only real way of making scrap markers consistently is with pork chop and that’s not exactly what he wants in his crew.....woe is brewy. Thats a shame. I was wondering why i didn't ever use the malifaux child with zipp..... No I dont see any master who can use any of the new models -_-......Sad Panda

@trikk it depends he can either get it via osa or by the wastrel passing to him. Both are viable options. It depends the turn you do it and what your trying to accomplish with Hoffman’s activation. Typically osa turn 1 though. i felt the same way about Sam but just like you said I couldn’t justify him since he was so darn squishy (and expensive). now that armor +1 only cost 1ss he’s not bad. If you compare him to a gremlin taxidermist he’s more resilient with a better stat line and the henchman characteristic to stone for damage reduction. Granted they don’t fill the same exact slot but I say it because I use the taxidermist a ton and he is squishier than Sam with armor. Last thing even comparing it with the next best option (Francisco). He is the same defensively unless you take wade in but Sam has the tactical going for him. So the trade off seems pretty even but Sams tactical seems game changing while Francisco is just more consistent.

Not really since I’m conceding that when an upgrade that provides an ability or action is discarded or removed all things related to it are removed. Tbh I don’t even see how removing/ discarding upgrades works since I don’t see where it’s described at all (I play it the way I described above because well it’s the only current sensible solution and that’s the way it’s played). I come from an mtg background so to see things so totally vague almost scares me since 99% of interactions are described and explained on their website. I’ve always been a raw kind of guy and if faq or errata point differently that’s fine but tbh I really don’t see how it applies differently. I mean totally no disrespect but when you guys just say that’s how it works or then how does this other thing work doesn’t help me understand where my logic went wrong especially when your question leads us to a rather “unwritten” part of the rules. I’m always intrigued by this stuff but funny enough it really doesn’t even matter for my strategy and has no relevance for any other master. I’d love to keep the discussion going in a different thread but I think arguing about a super rare thing like this is taking away from my excitement about Sam. Especially since I stated 9/10 times I would want to give Hoffman the +2 armor anyway to keep him and his debuff alive. Giving Hoffman armor +2 and his ability to borrow other models armor just makes him backbreakingly difficult to kill. Sam is quite powerful with one of our masters which is something I could not say ever before. I think the list has incredible synergy since basically everything can shoot or attack vs df and it makes df duels a total nightmare for the opponent. (Hopefully I get to try it out this week).

Cyborg applies armor well after the initial check so....at that point it already has armor +1 so then the other ability adds a second armor. Like I said nowhere on the upgrade does it say you lose armor if x it just say you gain armor if x. So the recheck isn’t to see if you lose armor because of something but to check if you gain more armor. It’s just asking the same question forever but it doesn’t ask.....do you have armor if so lose armor. Like other conditionals in the game it asks you did x happen if so y. Not if x happens then y never happened or disappears. It’s like if an attack trigger that grants an extra attack doesn’t happen do you lose the initial attack? The answer is an obvious no. You check for things that have an effect. for LLC it has an effect anytime the model doesn’t have the armor ability. It’s just like how Nellie and lucious upgrades check if you are winning. Would I tell the nelie player they lose health because the condition to gain health wasn’t met this turn so they lose the benifit they got last turn? No that doesn’t make sense. I’m going off the same reasoning. You don’t retroactively change something because it isn’t happening now instead of when the effect took place unless it is explicitly in the rules of the upgrade or model (like three headed).

Olay maybe I’m not articulating my thoughts. what I mean is the following: the ability does not state in any way that you can lose the armor ability once it’s gained. It says “this model gains the following ability if it does not already have the armor ability” So what I mean is that according to the ability It gains The Armor +1 ability if it doesn’t have it. There is no clause to losing the armor if it gets the armor ability From somewhere else after the fact. So again if it was written like 3 headed and said something along the lines of: this model gains the armor +1 ability when no other source provides it the armor ability. then you would be correct but it instead say this model gains the following ability if it does not already have the armor ability. So my other example was just to reflect if there was a means to remove the armor ability from a model with LLC short term then it would actually be granted armor again since it again fulfill the requirement in the top clause. A perfect example is do over where if a specific circumstance happens then you get to declare an extra action. Again the key is that the intro sentence on this card says that it GAINS an ability if it doesn’t have something not that it can lose the ability in anyway if it gets armor. So what it means to me is the only thing preventing this ability from granting the model 10000000 armor is that the first successful occurrence of the ability stops it from happening again. So for example: The ability goes on the model -> it asks does the model have the armor ability -> it doesn’t -> add armor +1 -> it asks again does the model have the armor ability -> yes because this upgrade applied the armor ability thus satisfying the loop until armor is removed in some way or the game ends. With this infinitely recurring ability it would be granted only one time because it has armor after the first application. If all armor abilities were removed for some reason it would grant the model one armor again because it met the conditional statement. The whole ability is the conditional statement. Armor is just the outcome in some circumstances. So basically anytime you don’t have a cookie get a cookie. From this ability you can only gain a max of one cookie. But if you get an extra cookie you don’t lose the first. If you eat all the cookies or your dick bag friend eats them you get one cookie back because you you always get provided one. That’s the only way the sentence can be read and be constantly rechecked because of how it is worded. Very logical but not intuitive.

Even if I concede rechecking and it does constantly recheck then it’s better.... There is no way of losing the armor nowhere in its clause does it state you can lose the armor ability it just says you can gain it. “this model gains the following ability if it does not already have the armor ability” Its conditional and nowhere does it have a clause to lose armor. So it’s almost better because it can potentially gain more armor if you could remove the armor ability till end of activation or turn or something (generating an extra armor). Nowhere in the clause does it say you can loose armor by having armor. Only that you can gain armor if you don’t have it.

I’m not here arguing that you don’t lose the ability when the card is discarded (ability is tied to the card) what I’m saying is that I don’t constantly recheck the initial clause of the ability because that’s not how it’s stated. If the card said if you gain armor during the game this armor is not applied then fine that would be clear. That clause on lead lined coat is to prevent models that already have armor from being able to purchase the upgrade. This is flipping it on its head and giving it more armor after the fact. It doesn’t need to say when hiring. I gave a perfect example. If you have no cookies then gain one cookie. does that statement anywhere say that you lose the initial cookie if you get more cookies. No it doesn’t. It would have to be much more specific if it wanted that to be the case and it is not stated at all in the language whatsoever. That is the same for armor in this case. Like wise the ability to get armor has a timing: “this model gains the following ability” Nowhere in the card text does it say loses ability based off of this card it can only gain armor based off of its conditional requirement. Once it succeeds there is no condition to lose the armor other than the upgrade being removed. abilities that can lose their utility are quite specific ex: three headed

Where does it say it checks again after it is initially applied. Example if English: If a person doesn’t have a lollipop give that person a lollipop. Based on that sentence where does it inform us if you give them another lollipop the first is taken away. The ability says absolutely nowhere that it checks more than once.