Justin

Guild probably wouldn't be too keen on all the robbery.

That is correct. Stat card means stat card.

Were competitive Rasputina lists running Ice Golems regularly before Shifting Loyalties came around? If they weren't, it's not a case of the Emissary replacing it, but a case of the Ice Golem being under powered and not seeing the table before Shifting Loyalties was ever printed. Also, is this actually a trend, or a single instance? Some models will always be better/worse (or at least perceived that way). To show that power creep is a problem with Shifting Loyalties as a whole, I think you need to show that this is a trend, and not just a single happenstance. More food for thought. Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. Enjoy the discussion.

I think anyone would agree that (assuming the same Wounds, let's say 5) a model with Df 5 and no defensive abilities is significantly easier to kill than a model with Df 4, Armor 8, Hard to Kill, and Regeneration 4. At some point, defensive abilities do make up for/out class sheer Df totals. We can argue about where that line is. The point being: looking at stats alone does not tell you whether or not the models are better.

Indeed, this is a good post. I'm not really going to jump into the fray, but I want to steer the discussion a little. Far too often I see a premise thrown out and that premise is accepted automatically, then everyone just jumps to how to fix/prevent the problem (because that's sort of the fun part). But let's question this premise. I don't think a straight stat comparison between the books is an accurate representation of power creep. For one, it ignores point cost. Shifting Loyalties had relatively few lower costed models, so their stats would be higher on average. Also, stats need to be looked at against their accompanying abilities (if a model has Armor, for example, a lower Df doesn't mean as much). The real test is whether Shifting Loyalties models are all of a sudden replacing all the book 1 models. Look at models with similar points costs and roles/themes within the same Factions. Witchling Stalkers and Sanctioned Spellcasters are the same cost, in the same Faction, with a magic using theme. Have Sanctioned Spellcasters replaced Witchling Stalkers? Ice Dancers are very close in cost to December Acolytes (6 vs 7) and have the same synergies with Rasputina (Frozen Heart), have they replaced December Acolytes? Bunraku have the same cost as Waldgeists and Young Nephilim, have Bunraku replaced those models (different themes, but it won't always be perfect. In fact, if you say, "well, there's not really a comparable model..." then that's great!). If yes, then we have issues. But if no, or even "well, it depends..." then I don't think we do. I'm not going to draw the conclusions for you, as I am obviously bias, but those are the questions I would ask.

Guild and Neverborn haven't seen a new Master since before second edition. (Though I suppose you could count the promotion of 1.5 Henchman to Masters as new Masters - I do not).

There has been absolutely nothing from Wyrd on Masters being phased out. Let's not start arguing about things that people are just guessing at. Now, isn't that new art cool?

Indeed. The preview has the printer's bleed on. The excess edges would be cut off during the printing process. The cards are the same layout/design as always.

Yeah, you would definitely need to prime them first.

They are ...good.

Well, the in the above line you quoted, I was saying that *usually* there is a reasonable way to resolve a rules question, without having to resort to an FAQ. When there is not, that's where the FAQ comes in. And most of your issues seem to be with the FAQ itself, ruling in a way you find counter-intuitive, so that's not really what I was talking about there. That said, it is not surprising you may disagree with some rulings in the FAQ. Everything in there, by definition, could have been interpreted in multiple ways. So if you had been interpreting a rule differently than how it ended up in the FAQ, I can understand how that may cause some frustration. In general, FAQs are not added to provide balance. They are, generally, added to provide clarity and consistency with the rules. As such, they are neither meant to help nor hinder specific models, but take an instance where players would disagree and give them a clear answer. I'll take two specific examples you seem to have problems with and try to provide some insight into why those decisions were made: First is Core Rule Question 51 which states that if a model has its Activation ended outside of its Activation (such as during Obey) there is no effect. This ruling was made because Activation is a very specifically defined game term. A model which is taking an Action outside of its Activation is not Activating, and therefore the Activation cannot be ended. This is not about common sense, or balance, but maintaining Activation as a very strict game term, which is important to the game as a whole. It also allows players who did not agree on the outcome of this situation to have a very clear answer for how to handle it. The second is the ruling in Abilities/Actions question 21 which states that models with Eat Your Fill can heal even when they are not Activating. For this, the exact wording of Eat Your Fill is important, so I'll quote it: Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model, this model may choose to heal all damage it has suffered and end its Activation. The way Eat Your Fill is worded, both the healing and the ending of the Activation are results of the model's choice to use the Ability. Ending the Activation is not a cost. If it were a cost, it would have been worded like this: Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model this model may choose to end its Activation to heal all damage it has suffered. In the above (hypothetical) example, ending the Activation is a cost which must be paid in order to heal. Had the above wording been the one printed, the ruling would have gone the opposite way. But, as Eat Your Fill is written, ending the Activation is not a cost which must be paid in order to heal, but merely one of the effects of the choice to use the Ability. Just because one of the effects cannot happen does not mean the entire Ability fizzles. I'll give another example where this is relevant, Killjoy's Cleaver: (1) Cleaver (Ml 6R / Rst: Df / Rg: y2): Target suffers 4/5/7 damage. After killing a model with this Attack, this model heals 2/3/4 damage. There are two effects there, dealing damage to an enemy, and healing damage. If both effects had to be valid for the action to be taken, Killjoy would be unable to kill enemy models while at full health (as models at full health cannot heal, and the entire attack would fizzle). It would be detrimental to the game to rule in this way. These ruling were not made to favor any particular models. And you may well disagree with them, that's fine! If they were completely unambiguous (and common sense as you say) they would not have needed to end up in the FAQ in the first place! I also want to add the caveat here that, over the years, I have become less and less inclined to post in depth explanations or answers in the rules forum, because it always seems that, years later, I end up quoted out of context (or even just changing my mind). It's also why FAQ answers frequently only have an answer without an explanation; all too often the explanation just ends up confusing things more. So please keep in mind that only the FAQ and actual rules are official. Please do not use this post to try to justify other rulings or formulate new questions. I am posting purely because you seem concerned about this, and I hope to shed some light on it for you.

Oh, well then you get two.

I am not entirely certain why you quoted the post you did, or why you keep referencing common sense. I was simply stating that I try to put entries in the FAQ based on what people find legitimately confusing, and not on everything which *can* be argued just because it can be argued. Hope that helps. As for Ulix, feel free to start a thread on the Gremlin forums and discuss it. At worst, people may have some advice for playing against it. And, if Ulix is too powerful, well, it's something to discuss.

No, but there are free apps for ios which allow you to unzip zipped files.

Each FAQ is an individual case, and applies only to the question at hand. They are not meant to be applied broadly. That is straight out of the start of the FAQ. But yes, the way Channel is worded (with the word "exactly") is different than those other instances.

It could have been written better. But, if the rulebook was written perfectly we wouldn't have an FAQ.

That's not the full quote: "...the model's range is 0 and will therefore not engage enemy models." The part you quoted is reminder text, which is broadly true, but unfortunately not true in all cases, and the FAQ clarifies this. Hope that helps.

Do you really think the clause in Obey is talking about enemy attacks? I try to put questions in the FAQ that legitimately confuse people and come up in games. At the end of the day, the English language is ambiguous, we have very limited space to clarify the abilities on the cards themselves, and I am not perfect. While the rules can often be interpreted multiple ways, generally there is one very reasonable way to interpret them. And, as fun as theory crafting and arguing rules is (and it really can be, I'm not being sarcastic), it can muddy the waters for newer players. So if this is truly something you find confusing, feel free to start a thread. But if you are just going out on a theoretical ledge, it will not make it into the FAQ.

Hey all, The May FAQ is up, check it out: http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/downloads/M2E_FAQ_Errata_5-1-16.zip It is worth noting that one question from the previous (March) FAQ was removed: question 8 under abilities and actions that affect multiple models.

This is correct. We gave them out as freebies and painting events and such, though they were never sold (to my knowledge).

If memory serves 1.5 just got some "face lift" type of edits, so I would download that one and ignore the original.

All of the older fiction is being put into audio form in the Tales of Malifaux Podcast: May save you some money on otherwise outdated books.

You should check out the FAQ.

It has not.

Discuss! http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/downloads/M2E_FAQ_And_Errata_3-3-16.zip