Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'faq'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Wyrd News
  • Games
    • Malifaux 2E
    • Through the Breach
    • Puppet Wars Unstitched
    • Evil Baby Orphanage
    • Jetpack Unicorn
    • Showdown
    • Kings of Artifice


  • Forum News & Rules
    • Wyrd Announcements
    • Wyrd Board Help and Code of Conduct
    • Community Events
    • Wyrd Events
  • Discussions and Interests
    • News, Reviews, & Discussion
    • The Hobby Room
  • Malifaux
    • Faction Discussion
    • Malifaux Discussion
    • Malifaux Rules Discussion
  • Through the Breach
    • TTB Discussion
    • Player Creations
    • [Campaign] - The Obsidian Gate
  • The Other Side
    • TOS - Discussion
    • TOS - Allegiances
    • The Other Side Rules Discussion
  • Other Games
    • Board Games
    • Card Games
  • Super Secret Forum
  • The131's Upcoming events


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL






Found 11 results

  1. Thimblesage

    Can Scheme Markers stack?

    Question about Scheme marker placement, Can they stack? https://youtu.be/evdgzOGEeTU?t=20m14s In this video “allowed to stack scheme markers on top of eachother”. Both the Large book pg.49 and the small book pg.56 are written the same and ready the same way. And yes, both are ambiguous. While playing I have heard both arguments but there hasn’t been any resolution. Below I break down different pros and cons for each that I have run across. The arguments FOR stacking references Section 1 Paragraph 4 “Sometimes a model will drop multiple markers. It is perfectly acceptable for two Markers to be on top of each other; both have their effects, it doesn’t matter which one is placed on top. This doesn’t specify if the “multiple Markers” can be friendly or if it's only legal to stack opposed markers. And Section 4 Paragraph 4 “Models may take a (1) interact Action to remove EVERY enemy Scheme Marker that is in base contact with the model.” The last point isn’t written in either rule book but a logic question. There are a great many Schemes and Strategies that are impossible combos; if every Marker needs a minimum of 4” between each other then certain combinations of S&S are illegal or impossible combinations. This could be a broken flaw to the game or an intentional layer of play strategy to understand the broken and illegal combos. Additional things to note, There are many synergy and metta shenanigans of certain models that almost sound like they would support stackable markers. The argument AGAINST stacking references Section 4 Paragraph 4 “Models may place a scheme Marker in base contact with themselves and NOT within 4” of another friendly Scheme Marker by taking a (1) Interact Action.” Secondly, almost every Scheme and Strategy breaks or becomes moot if you can stack markers. E.G. Line in the Sand becomes an Auto-Take every time. The rule book breaks down markers into the following sections, Markers: Three paragraphs Paragraph 1 - Description/Overview Paragraph 2 - Rules Paragraph 3 - Summary Corps Markers: Three paragraphs Paragraph 1 - Overview Paragraph 2 - Operation Paragraph 3 - Clarification Scrap markers: Three paragraphs Paragraph 1 - Overview Paragraph 2 - Operation Paragraph 3 - Clarification Scheme Markers: Four Paragraphs Paragraph 1 - Rules Paragraph 2 - Overview Paragraph 3 - Clarification Paragraph 4 - Rules
  2. Kimberly

    LGS Promotion FAQ

    Hello Wyrdos! October is another LGS promotion month, and in anticipation for it and the spooky surprises in store, I want to address and answer some frequently asked questions! 1) How do I get the promotion? Fill out the form here (found here) and make sure to attach proof of your receipt. 2) Does it have to be itemized? Your receipt has to be able to show that Wyrd Products were bought. "Assorted Wyrd", "Malifaux", or the like is acceptable. If your receipt does not include descriptors like that, then you will need to submit a photo of the receipt with the unopened Wyrd product, prices visible. 3) Can I buy from an online store or LGS online and have it delivered? Unfortunately, that's not allowed. We want you guys in the LGS, where you have a chance to grow the community and engage others about our games. 4) When will I get confirmation? Due to the volume of submissions, we only reach out to those who have some issue with their submission. If you want confirmation that your submission was sent in, please select "Send me a copy of my responses" right above the submit button. This will give you confirmation that it was properly submitted! 5) When will my item ship? Your item will ship sometime after the promotion ends, usually 7-10 business days after the close date of the promotion. This accounts for processing time in the warehouse, resolving issues with submissions, and verifying each submission as qualifying. 6) Will I get tracking for my promotional item? No, we do not provide tracking for the item. 7) How long does shipping take? The depends on several factors, actually! Shipping internationally can take, in some rarer instances, up to 8 weeks, but we often get reports of international promotional items arriving within 2-4 weeks of mailing. 8) Does the total have to be pre-tax? In countries with VAT or GST, your total counts towards the minimum requirements. In countries without VAT or GST, the minimum must be met before sales tax to qualify. I hope this clears up some questions, and if you have any additional ones please don't hesitate to ask through our contact form. Thanks all and I look forward to seeing all the support of LGSs. Check out the October LGS Promo if you haven't already!
  3. So now that the new FAQ's are out this is another instance where I will have to rely SOOOO much on my opponent remembering the changes. There are so many instances where I just say, "just tell me what happens I trust you" because its just so hard to know all of the other details of my opponents crew. I actually like this aspect, makes Malifaux what it is. Just have to live with the occasional aftermath of "oh that game last week actually shouldn't have gone that way..." I find that keeping things casual really helps mitigate all the complex and sometimes overlooked rule evolution. I am curious how other groups handle this? what are some steps or methods of dealing with the fact that sometimes some games aren't played correctly due to human error?
  4. Case 1: A 30 mm model is starting its move in severe terrain 1'' away from its edge. It has Wk6 and it is moving directly towards the edge in a straight line. How long will it be able to move? 1 inch in the severe terrain and 4 inches in normal terrain? Case 2: A 50 mm model is starting its move so that half of the model is in severe terrain, and half is in normal terrain. It has Wk6. If it is going to leave the terrain, will it suffer some penalty for being in severe terrain? How much penalty will it receive? Case 3: same as in case 2, but the model will be moving along the edge of severe terrain partially staying in it. What will be the penalties for it? UPD: Case 4: a model is crossing severe terrain. Is it suffering severe terrain penalty all the time the model is within the terrain? Should I apply the x2 multiplier to the path travelled AND the size of the base? UPD2: There isnt a clear answer in the rules and the FAQ, so i think it would be nice to see an official clarification on the matter
  5. Thimblesage

    Engagement and Errata

    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?
  6. I would like an official ruling on pushes. I think it may be universally accepted that pushes that are worded as push toward/push away are direct in that they happen along the line between the center of the two bases. However, what happens when the wording is push into base contact? 1. @solkanand other good folk on the forums have presented a solid argument which is based on consistency in that (following from the vague wording in the book) all relational pushes (i.e. when direction is specified in relation to a different base) are done directly away or towards, push into base contact with being a case of a relational push. 2. However, and that's me trying to interpret the rules, a case can be made for push into base contact to be along any straight line that results in the two bases physically touching, not just along the line that connects the centers of bases My point is, the first interpretation renders most push into base contact effects unusable around impassable terrain, i.e. most cases of a model being in hard cover. Moreover, a 50 mm model won't be able to push into base contact with a 30mm model if they are both touching the same wall, which is pretty ridiculous from a gameplay perspective. So I'd say that RAW there's no counter-argument to @solkan RAI I just don't see argument 1. working with any proper pushing ability Would like to see further discussn on the topic!
  7. There is a question (and answer) in the FAQ which puzzles me. The answer seems simple enough. But what happens if this continues? Let's say that the model takes a defensive stance again in the next turn. The way I read the answer, that would stack with the previous Defensive +3 to a Defensive +4 and move the end time ahead to the start of the models next activation. And then the Guardian activates and uses Protect again, which makes the defensive condition +6 and moves the end time to the start of the Guardian's next activation. The guardian and the other models could keep on doing this forever (or until the opponent grows tired of it and kills the Guardian), constantly raising the Defensive condition and moving ahead the end time. I am sure this is not the way it is supposed to be, but what am I missing? Or does this actually work?
  8. Hello Everyone, I believe we need a quite urgent FAQ to Gremlin Rooster rider. If a Rooster rider charges with 2 Wd left - being every single attack action of the charge in need to be declared - must charge again as soon as it declares the first attack of the charge. Then it will repeat this loop forever... Technically, a Henchman should leave the game in the loop with the poor chicken charging in & out until the round timer ends I guess it should be changed with "tactical action" or "action not generated by a charge" or somehow to make it consistent. Rampage: When this model has the opportunity to declare an Action, if it has two or fewer Wounds remaining, it must declare a Charge Action against the closest legal target which it is not engaged with. This Charge Action may be made while engaged. This model gains + to Attack and damage flips during this Charge Action. If there are no legal targets, this model may declare an Action normally.
  9. Hey everyone! Here's the new FAQ and Errata Document for Through the Breach. (4/27/16 - Link removed due to FAQ being updated in another thread) There weren't many changes this time around, just a clarification on the Paired Weapons Talent (Fated Almanac), an errata on when the Burning and Poison Conditions resolve, and an errata to the Fire Immuto capping it at a maximum of Burning +3. If you have any questions that aren't covered in this document, please post them here and I'll take a look at them when it's time to update the FAQ. Thanks!
  10. So The recent thread "Nix and the Red Joker" (no, this is not an additional attempt to get a sandwich) brought up a point that we should really get clarified: Namely, When The printed rules do not agree, or when they are insufficient to define a rule for a given situation, should FAQs, and pictorial elements such as diagrams, charts, and pictures be used to determine the rules? To wit, are they, on some level, themselves rules, and which has primacy? If a FAQ or chart introduces an element heretofore lacking from the printed text ruleset, should it be taken as a printed rule, or should it be used only for clarification of the specific situation that is being referenced? Don't get me wrong. Justin, Mack Dammit and co. did a fantastic job, and have done a fantastic job, at keeping the rules as clear and simple as possible, and ensuring that information in the diagrams and charts are also present in the text—but if we are going to come up with rules of thumb, and answer questions that aren't quite FAQ-worthy for each other, it would help if we knew where the various resources available to us stood in relationship to rules validity. As it stands now, I'd say that the order of supremacy(which rule trumps which) goes: errata FAQ Card Text Book Text Diagrams Charts pictures _________________ Word of Justin Rules Forum WHere _________ is the line of legitimacy. Anything below that is just a suggestion, whereas anything above that is Gospel and should be used to determine a rule dispute. I'd prefer to get a general guideline now rather than set ourselves up for endless arguments about how legitimate a source is for determining rules. It just seems simpler.
  11. Hey Wyrd folks. I appreciate your hard work on the upcoming Clarifications/FAQ Page. Any status update on this project? Thanks.