Q'iq'el

A Skeletal canary to be more precise

Hmm, I remember painting some uneaten flesh on it, which seems zombiestic to me, but maybe it was re-attached after the skeletification?

Canary.

A zombie canary, to be precise.

Everything I've heard about Malifaux 2 makes me excited about it. I'm on a hiatus due to playing with the baby every spare moment, but I think I'm going to start painting again and I'll clear my backlog right in time for Gencon prerelease. ^^Y

You want them to connect and invest so when they reach the end they want more. By taking this and giving the player the ability to tell their own story, based on the things they personally connect with, then you can provide an experience that is consistently entertaining, because the player has the tools and power to create their preferred gaming narrative. This requires the game to have a greater level of complexity, but also modularity and applicability whatever the player's needs.

It is exactly opposite to what you suspect. The greater the complexity, the harder it is for the player to connect with narrative, because mechanics get in the way. This is a common problem with most of the RPG games I've seen, where ultimately only the people who can get over complexities (due to personal interests, force of will or personal predispositions) get really sucked in. There's a reason why the hobby is targeted at very limited demographic, from definition.

Miniature games suffer from this too, to a degree, but I think most miniature players are there for the mechanics (strategy, competition etc.) and the visual experience, with only a minority engaging deeper in the narrative (that's not to say the former group of players doesn't enjoy the narrative, but it is more of an inspiration to play than the essence of play, if that is clear).

Back in the days of AD&D I ran a session during our high school camp, with completely no rules whatsoever (not only hadn't we brought any books, but we wanted to play on the go and we wanted to include everyone interested). It was just a story and characters - some players had known D&D and were using their experience as guideline, some didn't and simply participated... and the group essentially relied on the integrity of game master to make the experience fun (we didn't even roll for checks, just talked things over - the player would for example say how he attacks and the Game master would explain why it worked or didn't work). This was one of the deepest, most story driven experience I've ever had in D&D and after that I've never ran another group. It simply seemed bland.

Which brings me to another point - board games that cater to a sub-group of miniature players are niche within a niche within a niche. You'd need an incredible product to have a very modest success with it. You need to ask for opinion people, who'd have to be persuaded by friends to play and then make a game they'd want to play without being persuaded. Such games are not "dumbed down" and experience isn't any shallower, because the new players bring unusual to the experience and make it fresh again, even for the old hands.

"Simple to learn, lifetime to master" is an often repeated mantra, but it applies mainly to the casse-tête type of games, where the game is really simple, but the solution can be extremely complex, depending on the opponents' level.

For story driven games, role-playing and all that sort the only important thing is "the rules always get in the way". You need them to structure the experience, but it has to be driven by imagination (i.e. a lot of free space left for the players, with designers not imposing their designs on the players).

In my personal opinion, RPG games we have generally do a very poor job and it is better to think outside the box. The only thing maintaining this extremely unwieldy convention is the force of custom and the hermetic character of the subculture and its player base.

And see, this is the part that I see as completely false. Where does it state that a spell can't have the caster as the target for casting purposes and still affect another target for effect purposes. As mentioned above, the Spells Basic rule doesn't state that it just says that there is a target (which can be the caster) and that the caster has to have LoS (model's always have LoS to themselves) to that target.

A spell can have multiple targets, sure. The thing is, that every of these targets is still a target, which means it is being targeted. As simple as that. So you cannot say the spell has no targets or that the counterspell wouldn't work.

But the bottom line is that spells which don't have Rng:C do not target casters. Even if the spell generates strikes made by the caster, it still targets the model the strikes are conducted against.

And by the way, Rng: C is not a new notation at all - it's there from the very beginning of the Malifaux as far as I remember. If it isn't used, there's no caster-targeting.

The rules against self-targetting prohibit models to attack themselves. Presence of Rst:X is one of the factors which can make a Spell an attack, but not the only one. Besides, if Judge could target himself with this spell, he'd have to Strike against himself too, which would be pointless.

Lack of resistance is meaningless. There are plenty of no-rst spells that target other models. They simply don't get to resist them. It doesn't mean there's no target or anything like that. The most probable reason for the Rst omission is balance - since the spell generates additional strikes, the models still get to defend themselves in the opposed duels.

And if the fluff side of things bothers you, if Judge draws of energies of Malifaux to magic up his performance and strike and attack with unstoppable fury, then obviously someone apt at denying people access to these energies can counter-spell him and shut him down.

I'm struggling to think of any situations where an effect can fail unpredictably after a spell is cast. Are we talking about things like the Shikome/Marcus situation again, where the failure is in the ability to target?

Movement effects would be a common cause of this, I'd say. Especially when the spell targets multiple models and movement of one blocks the way for another. I had it at least once happen with Earthquake, so it isn't a purely theoretical problem.

In case of a movement effect with only one target, an interesting question arises though - is the knowledge that the model cannot move an information that would make the entire action impossible? What if the same spell has the potential to unblock the way for the target model (through AoE damage for example)?

Easiest to just treat it as though it was a Replace effect anyway, and nominate one of the new spiders to be the target.

That'd be a house rule though. The thing is that the original Swarm was not only replaced by summoned models, but also sacrificed beforehand, and a sacrifice is a game effect just like kill. To ignore it is a modification of the game mechanics and quite a big one at that.

There are plenty of other such cases - Coryphée come to mind.

It is up to the player choosing his Scheme to know what models may counter it and deny the points. If the player is new, you should guide him through the process and draw his attention to these quirks. Even if he doesn't tell you what Schemes he picks (assuming a learning game), you can still say "just be aware the Swarm can sacrifice itself when it scatters, so it may deny you points for some Schemes" beforehand.

I'd do the same for any friendly game I play. I don't play Colette very often, but when I do, I usually point this one out.

I don't think it is WAAC to adhere to the rules. I actually think it is a bad form to present your interpretation of the rules as "common sense" and label the players who disagree. The reasons for this situation are not a "loophole" in the rules, but simply how the rules are written and the logic behind it. Would there be no "sacrifice" mechanic involved, the situation would be a bit murky, but that is probably why the designers are explicitly sacrificing the Swarm in the process.

I think you should consider a deck a supply rather than an investment. All the decks, Malifaux or not, wear and become unusable. Plastic decks are just a bit more sturdy.

Also I'd have a problem with a sleeved deck or laminated deck. The later is almost equal to marking it (depends how well it is made, but there are bound to be some tiny bubbles and there are margins that may differ in size). The former will make the cards hard to see in some conditions (and the sleeves can look unique and therefore mark the cards as well, once they scratch or tear on the corners).

Malifaux decks are pricey, as far as decks go, but not extensively so - they still last quite a bit. If you are concerned with paying for new deck, use regular cards, they are dirt cheap all over the world.

I agree with your other statements, but this one (at least per the FAQ) is not true. If an effect of the spell would be impossible (like summoning an extra Rare model) then the whole spell is gone, you don't pay AP or AR, and you "reset back to before the Action began."

I think we've been through this confusion before. Knowing the action can't succeed beforehand and action not succeeding due to normal game mechanics (random factors, resists etc.) is not the same thing.

The FAQ speaks about two different situations - one is summoning a Rare minion when you are already at the limit. You know you cannot do it before you even attempt, so you cannot attempt. It is logical and analogous to not being able to take an action which would certainly kill your model (rules prohibit that, so you aren't even allowed to try such an action).

Then it speaks about a situation where you can execute an action, you don't know it will fail beforehand, but one of the effects fails upon execution. In case of Pine Box, the effect causing the model to unburry is ongoing and doesn't affect the spell at all. In case of other such Actions/Spells you still do get to do them and you follow normal Magic rules.

There's no reset or refund of APs, because your model didn't attempt an action it couldn't do. The action was possible, it just failed.

The biggest controversy of this thread, the revelation that if you fail one effect the entire action/spell fails has nothing to do with this question in FAQ at all - that is why people cannot find it in FAQ. It is simply the consequence of several different rules in the Rules Manual. The fact that failing one effect of the spell prevents all the other from going off is not a new problem and it isn't introduced by the FAQ at all. It's always been so and all the relevant statements are in the Rules Manual to begin with.

I also think that the suggestion you can take a look at the cards and then put them back shows poor understanding of the entire ruleset. Again the FAQ speaks about the situations where you know beforehand the Action cannot be done - you may take the action, declare it, then check if it is possible and if it isn't, you cannot do it so you reset. That happens before the flip, actually.

I also do not think it applies to any of the situation where the Rules Manual explains the conditions for the "Action fails" result (for example target turning out to be out of LoS or Range of your Action), because Failure of a legal action is not the same thing as not being able to take it to begin with.

Last but not least, I'd like to add for the sake of clarity, that while Errata does change the game rules, FAQ doesn't. It merely explains how you should interpret the rules that are already there. If you find it strange or hard to grasp, go back to the square one and re-read the basic rules, keeping in mind that your understanding should match the FAQ this time.

Edit2: As I look through the relevant rules now, It seems these are not uniform at all. For example, if you know the target is immune to certain Stat, you are not allowed to make duel against it - this is a basic rule for Duels and this would, IMHO, fall under not being able to execute an action... so it would reset it (so no, you are not even allowed to try a cast against I2I model, if your spell has a Rst:Wp). On the other hand the spell effects no longer seem to fail automatically if one of them fails - only if the caster fails to meet the ARs the entire spell fails. I know it's been clarified otherwise in the past, but I don't know if these older rulings still hold after the publication of the most recent FAQ/Errata.

I'm also not sure what is the situation of actions other than Strike or Cast. I'd assume if one of the effect fails the entire action fails, but that still wouldn't be the same as reset caused by the action being impossible to begin with. I can't find anything in support of that assumption right now.

Popped up in my newsfeed yesterday and since it's quite impressive, I thought I'd share:

http://chestofcolors.com/how-to-paint-rasputina-tutorial/

Does anyone have a link to the ruling that a spell fails if one of it's effects can't happen? I always played it that you resolved each sentence in a spell or ability, and if a specific sentence fails then just that part fails.

Spells are difficult... they can fail at different stages.

If you fail when you find out the target isn't legal (and spell has to have a target with very few exceptions), you pay only AP.

If you fail the cast, you pay only AP.

If you succeed at cast, but the spell is resisted you pay AP and AR, even though Ars are listed among the effects.

If one of the effects fails, you still pay AP and AR, but none of the effects gets executed.

There are some further quirks to this - effects that may happen conditionally won't fail the entire spell (i.e. ability to strike if in melee range, on Lure) and ongoing effects which count as success if they are successfully applied, regardless of the final result.

edit:

The most counter-intuitive part of the deal is when one of the spell's effects affects the target and the other the caster. In such case if the spell gets resisted, or the effect affecting the target fails for another reason, the effect affecting the caster (a push or a heal, for example) also doesn't go off.

And guys, there's really no need for FAQ quote on this one. It is all in the rules for effects, actions and casting magic. Just read them carefully and you'll find all the required rules. FAQ merely clarifies situations where it is a bit harder to wrap the head around the rules. There are past rulings on the forum too, if you run the search, but some of them might have been made obsolete with the FAQ/Errata.

or you could compare the opening lines of his spells

Arrest: target model...

Judge: Target model...

Blades and Bullets: This model...

We know who the spell is cast on now.

This is entirely false. You take it out of context. The structures of the sentences are different, how they open does not determine what they mean. The former two spells go directly into describing the effects of the spell on the target, while the last one starts by describing the effects of the casters.

I think a good look at the basic rules for the spells would help. By default all the spells target something and you always need LOS to the target. Those are very basics. If a spell affects another model, that model is the target period.

The exceptions are spells that cause pulse, aura or some other such effect. Rng:C spells do target models, it's just that the caster is the target.

If you have a situation, where the spell targets the caster and then there's another "target" within x" (i.e. it is not a pulse or aura), I'd say that another model is still being targeted, but this is not the case here anyway. Spells can have multiple targets (and still need LoS to all of them).

It's all in the very first bullet point of the "Spells Basics" rules.

The stuff they gained in Book 4 feels like a vicious, corrupt Secret Police.

I'd go one step further and say from the uniforms to the general brutality theme, they seem like the stereotypical spanish colonial army from the Zorro stories (which probably goes back all the way to western-frontier theme present from the very origins of Malifaux).

1. Half-wit, somewhat corrupt and incompetent police force, which is nevertheless very brutal - check.

2. Competent lieutnants capable of turning it into a fighting force with reasonable success - check.

3. Very corrupt and devious leadership - check.

plus additional theme:

4. Duped scientists/engineers furnishing the faction with an army of robots to overcome the weaknesses of their human resources and provide the trump card against the opponents.

As I've just said, even the uniforms are themed that way.

So the way I've always thought about it is that an Action is something you declare you're doing and the things that happen because of the action are the effects. So applying that to what you're saying is that if a model can not complete all "immediate" effects of an action it can not perform that action, however if an action with "delayed" effects results in a situation where the delayed effect can not occur, cancel the delayed effect only, not the entire action.

Those "delayed" effects are called "ongoing effects" and their rules are defined in the Manual (as well as immediate effects).

The thing is that failure of an effect is not necessarily tied to its execution. With immediate effects it is most often the case. With ongoing effects you fail when you fail to apply them - so failure which fizzles the spell is still possible. Then, if the effect is successfully applied to the target, it will be executed when the conditions are met and it may fail at that time... this is unrelated to the original action though.

There are several rules coming into play here and Pine Box is a poor example, because you cannot fail to apply the rules for the unburying of the buried model.

First is immediate vs. ongoing effects and slight differences in how they succeed or fail at the moment of the execution of the action.

Second is timeline - in Malifaux everything always happens on a timeline. Event is a point in time and an Action is an event. It can be interrupted by some conditions setting off abilities and such, but otherwise it is executed step by step in one point in time, and then the game resumes. It may leave ongoing effects that get resolved later, but since there are new actions happening and new models being activated in between, it cannot be the same action.

Third is the clarification for how the things in Malifaux fizzle in the FAQ. I'm a bit surprised it pops up now - it's one of the issues which has been explained and clarified long time ago. It merely got integrated into FAQ recently. It's always been that if you cannot execute one component of an action or spell, all of them fail, though there are some additional complexities involving casts (since there are multiple stages at which they can fail).

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

While I would prefer to avoid kicking that discussion off again, suffice to say that the A&D's action simply kills itself, which is fine. No part of that action is prevented by the rule. The placement bits are "events" (separate Talents) that occur on death, and as we know, in the case of an illegal event that would bring a model into play, the model is simply not brought into play.

My bad. I don't face A&D very often (and I haven't played for a bit) and I remembered it as a one rule. Probably the reason for other players' confusion as well.

If these are separate, then there is not problem with fizzling. Also Abilities (and the effects which are triggered by conditions and which interrupt the time flow are most often Abilities) are not necessarily Actions and as such may not be tied up by the same rules as Actions at all.

Eh, stuff like people arguing that you can't Alpha the Ashes & Dust to kill itself because the Storm and Core placement can't happen. Dumb things, mostly, but I seem to recall it comes up a lot.

I'm pretty sure we had a clarification from the Marshals to that effect, when the issue first appeared with Coryphée and Alpha (using dance apart to sacrifice the duet is not possible, because even though you could sacrifice them, the placement is forbidden and all the effects would fizzle) and it isn't a new interpretation of the rules at all.

Nope, as how can you move away from yourself.

I do it all the time.

Hmm, I felt there's something wrong with my line of thinking as I was writing it. Didn't occur to me to check the rules for specific APs, since the wording of the rule seems clear enough.

Indeed, these cannot be combined with general AP (page 33). Perhaps the rules could be more streamlined in this area.

I think it falls under the difference between "a cast" and "a cast action".

That is to say, because Seductive refers to casting, it covers every kind of Ability or Action which generates "a cast". On the other hand if it specified it affected only "a cast action", then it wouldn't work for channeled spells.

does that mean casting expert only works for a (1) spell then?

No, Casting Expert is a bit different.

You are not limited by the number in brackets. You are limited by the name of the Action you can use the AP on.

Melee expert -> only for Strike Action : it so happens Strike Actions only ever cost (1) AP, but it has nothing to do with Melee expert wording or rules.

Casting expert -> only for Cast Action : it so happens this may cost (0), (1), (2) or (ALL) and so you still can use your Casting Expert AP on any of these casts except for (0).

Note also that a spell which says (ALL) will use up your Specific CE AP together with your General AP.

And, IIRC, you still cannot use Casting Expert AP for Channel, just like you cannot use Melee Expert AP for Focus. These are different Actions, not listed in the rules for these Specific AP.

I get that that's the ruling, or rather the general consensus (though has this been officially ruled?), but I don't get the logic.

They are different actions. One is "Feral" and the other is "Wild Heart." They are used at different times, have different names, etc. The only similarities are the casting cost (should be irrelevant) and the type of action (casts).

For what it's worth, they are different Spells. Actions and Spells are actually defined categories in game, so you cannot mix them freely.

Cast and Channel are general magic Actions allowing any model with Spells to cast them. You may be casting different Spells, but you are still using the same Action to do so.

I distinctly remember we had this argument in the past and if I'm not mistaken the Marshals have weighted in clarifying it is indeed so.... but since I don't remember the thread and don't have the link, it may well be my wishful thinking. I suggest search.

If I am not very careful in who I bring with for Nicodem's crew, I am very :crows starved, greatly hampering his summoning.

And shouldn't it stay that way? I mean, sure, he could use some help in areas which are very important for achieving success in Malifaux, which might have not been so obvious back when he had been designed (mobility, survivability of the master himself etc.).

But there's also the other side to the story:

- It still is a Skirmish game played chiefly at 30-35SS. Being able to bring an extra model, any extra model, is an incredibly powerful ability. Even though powerful and expensive models can often one-shot such summons, they spend entire turn on that, and there are only 6 turns. Even the weakest minions have potential to survive such attacks, if there are not enough resources spent to guarantee success. Anyone who summons regular minions (obviously not speaking here about the Rats and such) must be severely limited in that capacity. That can't change.

- Nicodem is a very rare breed of a master who not only is support, but who performs worse than his minions. Malifaux is so master-centric, people often don't get that about him. His buffs are powerful enough to turn a regular 5SS model (Punk Zombie) into Lilith-killer or make Bête Noire dispatch some of the toughest masters in one go. Few other crews can rely on regular minions to do this kind of things.

Not only do I think such a niche master should stay in the game, but I also think he performs much better once you get your head around his underlying design principle. That may still not make him competitive enough to be truly tournament viable - this is something to discuss. Changing who he is not necessary, because it still is a very unique position giving access to strategies which will perplex the opponent.

The biggest barrier to summoning is rarely the crow its the availability of corpse counter's you dont bring with u. More often i have the crow but no raw material to upgrade.

That isn't my experience at all. Granted, I'm in very comfortable situation in that I don't face non-living crews very often (and when I do, they are constructs, so mostly in mixed crews). Nevertheless, because of the limited :crows availability, and due to the fact we want to keep high :crows for other spells as well, I hardly ever summon for other purposes than replenishing my own ranks and my own minions drop Corpse Counters always.

Let's say that out of 2-3 summons I get in a single game, typically 1 is to increase the crew size and getting 1-3 Corpse Counters for that isn't that big of a problem. Summoning Rogue Necromancy can be challenging and requires prior planning against some crews, but that's about it. I go with Flesh Constructs, if I can't do it.

Clearly both Corpse Counters and high :crows limit the ability, but of the two Corpse Counters can be obtained much more reliably, even when facing non-living opponents.

---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

I'd also like to point out that originally McMourning was a far better summoner than Nicodem. Sure, he was limited to Flesh Constructs, but he could keep churning them out thorough the game. Obviously the game evolved into a bit different kind of play for McMourning, but with Nicodem the summoning ability has always been a misconception.

I think Avatar doesn't get to summon all these models to further reinforce the point - he's about working with a horde of cheap undead and buffing them to a much higher standard, not about summoning.

There's very little original fluff about Nicodem. In the Book 2 stories he already has an army of Undead and only uses his skills to raise some Punk Zombies and buff them... I don't remember, perhaps heal them too.

In Wyrd Chronicles Nicodem appears with Mortimer, to murder a half-drowned resurectionist on the run from the Guild. The implied motive is the need for a body.

But yes, I do not think summoning is the central part of Nicodem's fluff. Gathering corpses and experimenting together with McMourning to reanimate an entire army quickly, definitely yes... but the scenes we have in the Book 2 imply these things are being done mostly with the use of devices, fluids and other Resurrections craft.

Having a command of such an army, making them fight better, restoring them channeling the Malifaux' magic - that is something Nicodem actually does in the fluff.

The entire "summoner" spin was, IMHO, misguided from the start. People put to much store in his ability to summon almost anything from the faction and tried to build his crews around it. It reversely affected how people advertised the master to their friends, but it has little to do with his actual gameplay or fluff.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

If it doesn't match the playstyle you've internalised for Nico, fair enough, but there's no need to shout other people down for wanting one of Nico's main aspects to be more prominent than it currently is.

Except that actual Nicodem players, few as we may be, may not want him changed only because those who do not play him would like to play him if he was a summoner.

But my argument was less about likes and dislikes and more about the simple fact that the wishlists (as you called it) and improvements are not the same thing and shouldn't be mixed up. It is hard to ask for the right improvements if you don't play and understand the master very well, which is probably why these requests shouldn't be based on superficial understanding of the fluff.

Nicodem's game currently does not revolve around summoning, because it's hard to pull off and resource-intensive. However, a lot of people (including basically everyone who looks at Nicodem for the first time) want to play him as a summoner first and foremost. To say that it's not the "correct premise" is to assume that Nico's core gameplay can't be adjusted to place more emphasis on summoning and less on buffing - I think that assumption is flawed. This is a wishlisting thread, after all.

I'd have no qualms with an openly wishlist post. No need to read it if you don't care either. But this is being discussed under the guise of improvement and re-balancing masters and on the top of that the proposed changes are supposed to bring the masters more in-line with the fluff and original design.

In the case of Nicodem this is not only highly subjective, but also not how he has been played for years now. No excuse for not researching it before you get into him (I understand there's plenty misinformation about him around) and even less for proposing the changes under guise of "improvements.

Nicodem

I'd defiantly remove the second crow he needs for Reanimator, it doesn't seem right that he needs very specific cards when his game relies around summoning things.

The only other things I would be tempted to do is give him some sort of corpse counter creating mechanic such as discarding cards, ie weak = 1, moderate =2 and sever = 3... Red joker = 3 + another flip... Make it a 0 action and possibly give Nicodem instinctual or make it a 1 action but limit it to once per turn, perhaps even make it a spell?

Nicodem's game does not revolve around summoning at all. This is the problem with evaluations like this - you have to base them on the correct premises first and foremost.

Yes, Nicodem's summon is very powerful - he can summon most of the Undead models on the table without paying their SS cost. It is limited by high requirement, so that you can't really do it reliably more than 2-3 times during a game. This is by design and makes perfect sense.

So, to get the premise right: Nicodem's game resolves around buffing and healing Undead models.

The question is, should he be able to buff them more? Heal is already insanely powerful as is.

Nicodem has got new buffs through Rafkin and Molly, but there's a high price attached to these models.